14 Cited authorities

Gunn v. Minton
568 U.S. 251 (2013) Cited 2,947 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding insubstantial the federal question whether patent lawyers being sued for malpractice could have succeeded in a prior federal patent suit by timely raising a particular argument, because "[n]o matter how the state courts resolve that hypothetical ‘case within a case,’ it w[ould] not change the real-world result of the prior federal patent litigation. [Plaintiff's] patent w[ould] remain invalid."
Chia-Lee Hsu v. Abbara
9 Cal.4th 863 (Cal. 1995) Cited 777 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 even when the party prevails on the ground that the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or nonexistent, if the other party would have been entitled to attorney fees had it prevailed
Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.
120 Cal.App.4th 90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 357 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendants' solicitation of the plaintiff's customers by making "fraudulent and disparaging comments" about the plaintiff and false reports to a government agency that the plaintiff was responsible for pollution were not of public concern in part because the plaintiff was not "an entity in the public eye"
Scott Co. v. Blount, Inc.
20 Cal.4th 1103 (Cal. 1999) Cited 291 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the plaintiff was a prevailing party despite the fact that the plaintiff originally sought $2 million in damages, but recovered only $440,000
Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp.
110 Cal.App.4th 1658 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 142 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that once a party "produces evidence sufficient to make its prima facie case, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the other party to refute the prima facie case"
Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist.
98 Cal.App.4th 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 106 times
Concluding that an order that "completely resolved all issues between all parties" on petitioner's writ petition was a final judgment from which no timely appeal was taken and stating that the "[r]ules of [c]ourt do not provide, once a judgment ... has been entered, ... the time to appeal can be restarted or extended by the filing of a subsequent judgment ... making the same decision"
Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc.
216 Cal.App.4th 984 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 67 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Maynard v. BTI Group Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 984, the plaintiff sued for breach of contract and a number of tort claims.
Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist.
52 Cal.3d 266 (Cal. 1990) Cited 80 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that judgment could be entered under California statute based on acceptance of offer during statutory 30–day period, even though the accepting party made counteroffers before accepting the original offer
Camper v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
3 Cal.4th 679 (Cal. 1992) Cited 56 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Camper v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 679, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 836 P.2d 888 (Camper), the Supreme Court observed: "[I]t is now too well established to question that the time limitation set forth in Labor Code section 5950 is jurisdictional."
Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency
41 Cal.App.4th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 16 times
Rejecting contention that judgment had not been entered because it did not appear in the register of actions; "since the judgment was signed by the law and motion judge on June 30, 1995, it was deemed entered on that date"
Rule 8.104 - Time to appeal
Cal. R. 8.104 Cited 2,116 times
(a)Normal time (1) Unless a statute or rules 8.108, 8.702, or 8.712 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: (A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of

Brief

14 Cited authorities

Holding that a party is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 even when the party prevails on the ground that the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or nonexistent, if the other party would have been entitled to attorney fees had it prevailed

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the plaintiff was a prevailing party despite the fact that the plaintiff originally sought $2 million in damages, but recovered only $440,000

Holding that once a party "produces evidence sufficient to make its prima facie case, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the other party to refute the prima facie case"

In Maynard v. BTI Group Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 984, the plaintiff sued for breach of contract and a number of tort claims.

Holding that judgment could be entered under California statute based on acceptance of offer during statutory 30–day period, even though the accepting party made counteroffers before accepting the original offer

In Camper v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 679, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 836 P.2d 888 (Camper), the Supreme Court observed: "[I]t is now too well established to question that the time limitation set forth in Labor Code section 5950 is jurisdictional."

Rejecting contention that judgment had not been entered because it did not appear in the register of actions; "since the judgment was signed by the law and motion judge on June 30, 1995, it was deemed entered on that date"