§Why CasetextPricing

Order After Hearing POS

undefined

9 Cited authorities

  1. Levy v. Superior Court

    10 Cal.4th 578 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that the signature of a party's attorney is insufficient to create an enforceable settlement under California law

  2. Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Ass'n

    17 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 139 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the disputed provision was an unenforceable penalty for late payment of interest

  3. Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

    232 Cal.App.4th 1332 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that contractual provision was a penalty based on factfinding that merchant anticipated no damages from breach with no mention of third-party liability

  4. Wackeen v. Malis

    97 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 90 times
    In Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 118 Cal. Rptr.2d 502 (Wackeen), the court explained the sentence was the Legislature’s solution to a problem arising in situations where the trial court lost jurisdiction over a case before all the terms of a settlement agreement were performed.

  5. California State Automobile Ass'n. Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Superior Court

    50 Cal.3d 658 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a party stipulates to the resolution of a specific issue in a court-approved judgment, the judgment binds the party in subsequent actions

  6. Machado v. Myers

    39 Cal.App.5th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 40 times
    In Machado, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th 779, an ambiguous property line between two formerly connected plots of land caused a dispute between the Machado and Myers families, who were both using the area as if it were a part of their property.

  7. Fiore v. Alvord

    182 Cal.App.3d 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 63 times

    Docket No. A028724. December 27, 1985. [Opinion certified for partial publication. ] Part IV is not ordered published, as it does not meet the standards for publication contained in California Rules of Court, rule 976(b). Appeal from Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. 80487, Roland K. Hall, Judge. COUNSEL Susan R. Reischl and Robert L. Mezzetti for Defendants and Appellants. Austin B. Comstock and Comstock, Yonts, Black, Niles, Kinda, Premo Schenk for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION KING

  8. Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of L.A.

    33 Cal.App.5th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    B288355 B288356 03-29-2019 MESA RHF PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Hill RHF Housing Partners, L.P., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Reuben Raucher & Blum, Timothy D. Reuben, Stephen L. Raucher, and Hana S. Kim, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Beverly A. Cook, Assistant City Attorney, and Daniel M. Whitley, Deputy City Attorney, for

  9. Red & White Distribution, LLC v. Osteroid Enters.

    38 Cal.App.5th 582 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    B291188 08-09-2019 RED & WHITE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. OSTEROID ENTERPRISES, LLC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Osteroid Enterprises, LLC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Red & White Distribution, LLC, et al. Defendants and Appellants Kozberg & Bodell and Gregory Bodell, Los Angeles, for Appellants Red & White Distribution Sacramento and Mikhail Cheban. Baranov & Wittenberg and Michael M. Baranov, Los Angeles, for Appellant Red & White Distribution