9 Cited authorities

Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) Cited 1,033 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance
Scott Co. v. Blount, Inc.
20 Cal.4th 1103 (Cal. 1999) Cited 296 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
Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
175 Cal.App.4th 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 72 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that punitive damages were not appropriate where there was an absence of a false reason to hide an illegal termination and an absence of evidence showing a pattern of unwarranted criticism
Biren v. Equality Emergency Medical Group, Inc.
102 Cal.App.4th 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 82 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming judgment against director for breach of shareholder agreement
Garcia v. Superior Court
50 Cal.3d 728 (Cal. 1990) Cited 85 times
Holding that although a parole officer had no duty to make disclosures about the dangerousness of a parolee, once he chose to do so, he "had a duty to use reasonable care"
Clauson v. Superior Court
67 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 36 times
Deciding whether plaintiffs could seek at the pleading stage punitive damages and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping
In re Marriage of Sherman
162 Cal.App.3d 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Cited 35 times
Precluding spousal support modification upon wife's remarriage where MSA provided terms would not be modifiable
Blegen v. Superior Court
125 Cal.App.3d 959 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 8 times
Docket No. 62015. November 23, 1981. COUNSEL Richard D. Hughes and David P. Crandall for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Arthur W. Tuverson and Helen Gordon Woznak for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION STEPHENS, Acting P.J. Petitioner is the plaintiff in a pending legal malpractice action. Real parties in interest are defendants in that action. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge respondent court's order striking a claim for punitive damages. We issued an alternative
Section 1717 - Contract providing for award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in enforcing contract
Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 Cited 3,086 times 17 Legal Analyses
Allowing an award of attorney's fees where the contract specifically provides for attorney's fees that are incurred to enforce that contract

Opposition_to_motion_to_strike

9 Cited authorities

Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

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 punitive damages were not appropriate where there was an absence of a false reason to hide an illegal termination and an absence of evidence showing a pattern of unwarranted criticism

Affirming judgment against director for breach of shareholder agreement

Holding that although a parole officer had no duty to make disclosures about the dangerousness of a parolee, once he chose to do so, he "had a duty to use reasonable care"

Deciding whether plaintiffs could seek at the pleading stage punitive damages and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping

Precluding spousal support modification upon wife's remarriage where MSA provided terms would not be modifiable

Allowing an award of attorney's fees where the contract specifically provides for attorney's fees that are incurred to enforce that contract