§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

23 Cited authorities

  1. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick

    60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 505 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreement "must not only contain all the material terms but also express each in a reasonably definite manner."

  2. Banner Entm't, Inc. v. Superior Court

    62 Cal.App.4th 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 202 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding mandatory means of assenting established by two sentences: "'Until such time, if ever, as such more formal agreement i . . . concluded, this agreement when signed by the parties hereto will constitute a legal and binding obligation of the parties. Please acknowledge your approval of the foregoing terms by signing a copy of this letter in the space indicated below'"

  3. Casella v. Southwest Dealer Services, Inc.

    157 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 104 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding narrow provision limiting fees to those "'incurred in enforcing or attempting to enforce'" employment agreement did not permit recovery of fees former employee incurred in prosecuting wrongful discharge tort claim against employer

  4. Chambers v. Kay

    29 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 102 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that conclusion reached was consistent with a Formal Opinion

  5. Fergus v. Songer

    150 Cal.App.4th 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a client's intention to void a contingent fee agreement does not have to be explicit to effectively void the agreement

  6. David v. Hernandez

    226 Cal.App.4th 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 59 times
    In David, appellants brought a negligence action against a truck driver after their car collided with his tractor-trailer.

  7. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability Litigation

    818 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1987)   Cited 86 times
    Reversing on the merits of the attorneys' fee dispute

  8. Jewel v. Boxer

    156 Cal.App.3d 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 86 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding income generated through the winding up of unfinished cases is allocated to the former partners and the right of the client to select an attorney of one's choice is irrelevant to the rights and duties between the parties

  9. County of San Joaquin v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd.

    117 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 43 times

    No. C043812 March 22, 2004. Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer Jensen and Jeffery V. Lusich for Petitioners. Vincent Bausano and Neil P. Sullivan for Respondents. MORRISON, J. A workers' compensation applicant and her employer settled her case by giving her a lump-sum payment, but crediting the employer for certain advances, both in a specified amount and "further" amounts subject to proof. A workers' compensation judge (WCJ) approved the settlement, but later ruled the employer was not entitled to

  10. Mark v. Spencer

    166 Cal.App.4th 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Mark, "[t]he complaint sought enforcement of an agreement between [plaintiff] and defendant[, both attorneys,] to divide fees awarded to them as cocounsel representing the plaintiffs in an earlier class action lawsuit [adjudicated in state court]."

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 36,300 times   1254 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  12. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,640 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  13. Section 657 - Causes for which new or further trial granted

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 657   Cited 2,143 times
    In section 657 the Legislature has said to the trial courts, "You must follow certain specific steps in granting a motion for new trial"; it has not said, "You need not follow these steps unless your failure to do so would actually harm the litigant against whom the motion is granted."

  14. Section 1654 - Interpretation against party causing uncertainty

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1654   Cited 680 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Codifying the doctrine of contra proferentem

  15. Rule 3.769 - Settlement of class actions

    Cal. R. 3.769   Cited 70 times

    (a) Court approval after hearing A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing. (b) Attorney's fees Any agreement, express or implied, that has been entered into with respect to the payment of attorney's fees or the submission of an application for the approval of attorney's fees must be set forth in full in any application for approval of the dismissal or settlement of an action

  16. Rule 3.10 - Application

    Cal. R. 3.10   Cited 8 times

    The Civil Rules apply to all civil cases in the superior courts, including general civil, family, juvenile, and probate cases, unless otherwise provided by a statute or rule in the California Rules of Court. Cal. R. Ct. 3.10 Rule 3.10 adopted effective 1/1/2007.