§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition_to_motion_to_tax_costs

Opposition

24 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Rowland

    4 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 727 times
    In People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897, we disapproved the Thompson passage on which he relies.

  2. Fassberg Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles

    152 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 223 times
    Holding that the plain meaning of the statute only awarded civil penalties for claims, not statements

  3. Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co.

    73 Cal.App.4th 1265 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 158 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the court erred in refusing to apportion attorney fees between plaintiffs and the sole losing contractor where much of the trial concerned issues not involving the sole losing subcontractor, but rather counsel preparation for and trial of issues involving three other prevailing party subcontractors

  4. American Airlines v. Sheppard

    96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

  5. Seever v. Copley Press, Inc.

    141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 87 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"

  6. Linthicum v. Butterfield

    175 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 67 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Linthicum the court had affirmed a judgment imposing an equitable easement to access "landlocked" property where the owner thereof had been using a roadway over neighboring property for several decades.

  7. Culbertson v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc.

    190 Cal.App.3d 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 112 times
    In Culbertson, the plaintiff rejected a settlement offer because it would have resulted in zero recovery due to a workers' compensation lien. (Culbertson, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 708.)

  8. Ignacio v. Caracciolo

    2 Cal.App.5th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ignacio, the Court of Appeal concluded a statutory offer containing an "incredibly broad" release provision, "encompass[ing] numerous claims the releasers may have against the releasees beyond those at issue in the lawsuit," was not valid under section 998. (Ignacio, at p. 88, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 76.)

  9. Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro

    27 Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that a § 998 offer requiring plaintiff to enter a voluntary dismissal with prejudice met the statutory requirement that the offer allow judgment to be taken in accordance with the terms of the offer

  10. Ripley v. Pappadopoulos

    23 Cal.App.4th 1616 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that Federal Express charges are expressly disallowed—presumably because they constitute "postage"

  11. Section 1032 - Right of prevailing party to recover costs

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032   Cited 1,869 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Governing awards of litigation costs other than fees

  12. Section 1542 - Claims not known by creditor at time of executing release

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1542   Cited 1,664 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a general release does not extend to unknown claims

  13. Section 1033.5 - Items allowable as costs

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5   Cited 1,497 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Permitting various types of service as costs

  14. Section 998 - Offer served prior to resolution of dispute by arbitration

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998   Cited 1,468 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Cost-shifting provision applies to a plaintiff who rejects a section 998 offer and "fails to obtain a more favorable judgment"

  15. Section 1542 - Claim of another state

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1542   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) At any time after property has been paid or delivered to the Controller under this chapter, another state is entitled to recover the property if: (1) The property escheated to this state under subdivision (b) of Section 1510 because no address of the apparent owner of the property appeared on the records of the holder when the property was escheated under this chapter, the last known address of the apparent owner was in fact in that other state, and, under the laws of that state, the property

  16. Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs

    Cal. R. 3.1700   Cited 276 times

    (a) Claiming costs (1)Trial costs A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first. The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best