§Why CasetextPricing

Motion Order

undefined

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc.

    23 Cal.4th 754 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 155 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting defendant's contention that "the attorney fee award was excessive because it was substantially higher than [plaintiff's] recovery."

  3. Wakefield v. Bohlin

    145 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Wakefield v. Bohlin (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 963, 975–977 (Wakefield), the court explained that prevailing parties are classified into two distinct groups.

  4. Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    32 Cal.4th 1246 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 60 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding service contract is not express warranty under Song-Beverly Act

  5. Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay

    57 Cal.App.4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 70 times
    Applying § 1032's "net monetary recovery" standard to determine whether Song-Beverly plaintiff was prevailing party

  6. Bussey v. Affleck

    225 Cal.App.3d 1162 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 41 times
    In Bussey v. Affleck, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1162, 1166 (1990), the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) held that where a contract provides for payment of costs and attorney's fees, expert witness fees and photocopying charges are recoverable as attorney's fees if they represent an expense ordinarily billed to a client and not included in the overhead component of the attorney's hourly rate.

  7. Hadley v. Krepel

    167 Cal.App.3d 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 48 times
    In Hadley, the trial court ordered a significantly reduced amount of contractual attorney fees and costs to the prevailing defendant upon hearing the plaintiff's motion to tax costs; it reduced the fees even lower than the plaintiff requested in the motion.

  8. Clayton Development Co. v. Falvey

    206 Cal.App.3d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 21 times

    Docket No. D006901. December 6, 1988. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. N22370, David B. Moon, Jr., Judge. COUNSEL Diane E. Douglas Tufts for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dorazio, Barnhorst Bonar and Joel L. Incorvaia for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION KREMER, P.J. Plaintiff Clayton Development Company, Inc. (Clayton), appeals summary judgment favoring defendants Michael and Christie Falvey (Falvey) on its action on a promissory note. Clayton contends the court erred in holding

  9. Mandel v. Lackner

    92 Cal.App.3d 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 32 times

    Docket No. 42070. May 4, 1979. Appeal from Superior Court of Alameda County, No. 427816, Robert L. Bostick, Judge. COUNSEL Evelle J. Younger, George Deukmejian, Attorneys General, John J. Klee, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Charlton G. Holland III, Asher Rubin and Edward P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants. Richard M. Kaplan, Ephraim Margolin and Nicholas Arguimbau for Plaintiff and Respondent. Antonio Rossmann, John E. McDermott, Robert T. Olmos, Patricia M. Tenoso