Eisen v. Tavangarian

Docket NumberB278271
Decision Date20 June 2019

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
28 cases
  • Lent v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 2021
    ...leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding." ’ " ( Ibid. ; see Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 647, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 744 [applying this standard to the defenses of waiver and estoppel]; Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 Cal.A......
  • Williams v. Dr. Med. Ctr. of Modesto, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 2024
    ...(2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 219, 229, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 255; BMC Promise Way, at p. 286, 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 269; Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal. App.5th 626, 636-637, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 744; Stroud v. Tunzi (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 377, 384, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 756.) Further, a judicial admission is an uneq......
  • Park Mgmt. Corp. v. in Def. Animals
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 2019
  • Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2021
    ...‘the declaration or utterance must be one of fact and not a legal conclusion, contention, or argument.’ " ( Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 637, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 744.) "[A] mere conclusion, or a ‘mixed factual-legal conclusion’ in a complaint, is not considered a binding judi......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • The Travelers Indemnity Company Of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 3, 2022
    ...the declaration or utterance must be one of fact and not a legal conclusion, contention, or argument." (Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 637 [248 Cal.Rptr. 3d 744].) "[A] mere conclusion, or a 'mixed factual legal conclusion' in a complaint, is not considered a binding judici......
  • The Travelers Indemnity Company Of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 3, 2022
    ...the declaration or utterance must be one of fact and not a legal conclusion, contention, or argument." (Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 637 [248 Cal.Rptr. 3d 744].) "[A] mere conclusion, or a 'mixed factual legal conclusion' in a complaint, is not considered a binding judici......
1 books & journal articles
  • The Puzzle of Precedent in the California Court of Appeal
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation (CLA) No. 33-2, 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...this is the case even if a Court of Appeal panel is considering a case from its own division. (E.g., Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 637 ["We, however, are free to reconsider one of our prior decisions and conclude it was mistaken."]; Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard (2014) 222......