CAS California-specific Essays Flashcards

California's Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP §425.16) permits a defendant to file a special motion to strike when the plaintiff's claims arise from:

Answer: Acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue

CCP §425.16 allows defendants to strike claims that arise from protected activity — acts in furtherance of the constitutional right of petition or free speech connected to a public issue.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §430.10(e), a general demurrer may be sustained when:

Answer: The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action

A general demurrer under CCP §430.10(e) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading — it is sustained when the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted which system of comparative fault?

Answer: Pure comparative fault — plaintiff may recover damages even if 99% at fault

In Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court adopted pure comparative fault, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages proportionally reduced by their own percentage of fault, even if they are more at fault than the defendant.

Under California's strict products liability doctrine established in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), a plaintiff must prove:

Answer: The product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control and the defect caused plaintiff's injury

Greenman established that a manufacturer is strictly liable when a product with a manufacturing defect causes injury; the plaintiff need only show the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1, the statute of limitations for a personal injury action is:

Answer: 2 years from the date of injury or discovery

California CCP §335.1 provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, subject to the discovery rule which may toll the period until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury.

Under California Evidence Code §1101(a), evidence of a person's character trait is inadmissible when offered to prove:

Answer: That the person acted in conformity with that trait on a specific occasion

California Evidence Code §1101(a) bars character evidence offered as circumstantial proof that a person acted in conformity with that character on a specific occasion, mirroring the federal prohibition on propensity evidence.

Under California Civil Code §3384, specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property is:

Answer: An equitable remedy available at the court's discretion when legal remedies are inadequate

California Civil Code §3384 codifies specific performance as an equitable remedy granted in the court's discretion when compensatory damages are inadequate; real property's uniqueness typically satisfies this requirement.