§Why CasetextPricing

Jack Anderson vs. County of Orange

Opposition

16 Cited authorities

  1. Benach v. County of Los Angeles

    149 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 952 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding photocopying costs for exhibits prepared for use at trial were recoverable under discretionary provision of § 1033.5, subd. (c)

  2. Chavez v. City of Los Angles

    47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 292 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success

  3. Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 190 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court did not err by instructing jury "[d]efendant has the obligation to prove that the [p]laintiffs were independent contractors"; holding plaintiffs "[do] not have the burden of disproving such status"

  4. Bender v. Cnty. of L.A.

    217 Cal.App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where an arrest is unlawful and excessive force is applied in making the arrest, there has been coercion in violation of the Bane Act

  5. Jones v. Dumrichob

    63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 152 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in awarding expert fees pursuant to a section 998 offer consisting of a cost waiver, but no monetary amount

  6. Charton v. Harkey

    247 Cal.App.4th 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 51 times
    Reversing 25 percent across-the-board reduction of cost award for one of four jointly-represented defendants who prevailed against plaintiffs and remanding for determination of costs awardable to sole prevailing defendant

  7. El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, Inc.

    150 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 56 times
    Affirming trial court's allowance of costs incurred in creating an exhibit summarizing important financial data, and observing that "[t]he idea that the cost is not allowable because the exhibit could have been created using adding machines, ledger paper, and pencils instead of an electronic database is antiquated"

  8. Ripley v. Pappadopoulos

    23 Cal.App.4th 1616 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that Federal Express charges are expressly disallowed—presumably because they constitute "postage"

  9. Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 61 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding codified in § 917.1, subd.

  10. Science Applications Internat. v. Superior Court

    39 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming costs for graphic exhibit boards and video presented to the jury, as essentially "a computerized form of blowup or model which was apparently, in the opinion of the trial court, reasonably helpful to the trier of fact and possibly fitting within the category of ‘models and blowups’ " under the statute

  11. Section 1032 - Right of prevailing party to recover costs

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032   Cited 1,888 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Governing awards of litigation costs other than fees

  12. Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs

    Cal. R. 3.1700   Cited 278 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