§Why CasetextPricing

Mark Tran vs. International Buddhist Cultural Heritage Foundation

Reply Other

5 Cited authorities

  1. Gelfo v. Lockhead Martin Corp.

    140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws

  2. Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn.

    19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

  3. Ersa Grae Corp. v. Fluor Corp.

    1 Cal.App.4th 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 116 times
    Affirming jury's finding that parties had enforceable contract

  4. Capital Nat. Bk. of Sacramento v. Stoll

    220 Cal. 260 (Cal. 1934)   Cited 11 times

    Docket No. Sac. 4754. March 1, 1934. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. H.D. Burroughs, Judge. Modified and affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Howe, Hibbitt Johnston and White, Miller, Needham, Harber Mering for Appellants. Inman West, Sheridan Downey, Morgan V. Spicer and Ralph H. Lewis for Respondents. THE COURT. We hereby adopt the following portions of our former opinion as a statement of the facts and issues presented in this case: "This

  5. Kohl v. Lilienthal

    81 Cal. 378 (Cal. 1889)   Cited 34 times

    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. COUNSEL: Mesick & Maxwell, Garber, Thornton & Bishop, and F. A. Berlin, for Appellants. William H. Pierson, and Stewart & Herrin, for Respondents. JUDGES: In Bank. Fox, J. Beatty, C. J., Works, J., Paterson, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred. McFarland, J., Thornton, J., dissenting. OPINION FOX, Judge [22 P. 690] In 1882 two mining corporations -- the Head Center Consolidated