§Why CasetextPricing

10 Cited authorities

  1. Howard v. American Natl. Fire

    187 Cal.App.4th 498 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 161 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest in excess of a policy limit owed by the insurer to indemnify the insured for the plaintiffs' certain judgment

  2. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  3. Thon v. Thompson

    29 Cal.App.4th 1546 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 35 times
    Disagreeing court erred by, inter alia, "awarding costs absent sufficient detail of the expenditures"; defendant supplied itemized costs and attorney declaration asserting necessity, and "absent an explicit statement by the trial court to the contrary, it is presumed the court properly exercised its legal duty"

  4. Kahn v. Dewey Grp.

    240 Cal.App.4th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying section 1010.6 to a party's electronic service of notice of entry of judgment

  5. Lubetzky v. Friedman

    228 Cal.App.3d 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 34 times

    Docket No. B038108. February 20, 1991. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. WEC88335, Sara K. Radin, Judge. COUNSEL Richard Lubetzky, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mark B. Shragge for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION LILLIE, P.J. Plaintiff Richard Lubetzky appeals from an October 14, 1988, order denying his request for sanctions and denying his motion to tax costs on appeal of defendants Robert Friedman, Erving Friedman, Monica Friedman, and Ariel Ganezer (hereinafter

  6. Perko's Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises

    4 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 29 times

    Docket No. F015043. March 5, 1992. [Opinion certified for partial publication.] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I and IV. Appeal from Superior Court of Fresno County, No. 423282-3, James L. Quaschnick, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Nast for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lawrence A. Haun and Roger A. Brown for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION STONE (W.A.), Acting P.J. In the published portion of this opinion we will conclude

  7. Section 1033.5 - Items allowable as costs

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5   Cited 1,494 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Permitting various types of service as costs

  8. Section 685.070 - Costs judgment creditor may claim in enforcing judgment

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 685.070   Cited 72 times
    Notwithstanding defects in service and notice

  9. Section 68093 - Witness' fees for witness legally required to attend in civil action

    Cal. Gov. Code § 68093   Cited 31 times

    Except as otherwise provided by law, witness' fees for each day's actual attendance, when legally required to attend a civil action or proceeding in the superior courts, are thirty-five dollars ($35) a day and mileage actually traveled, both ways, twenty cents ($0.20) a mile. Ca. Gov. Code § 68093 Amended by Stats 2002 ch 784 (SB 1316),s 207, eff. 1/1/2003.

  10. 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