§Why CasetextPricing

Reply To Opposition

Reply

9 Cited authorities

  1. Missouri v. Jenkins

    491 U.S. 274 (1989)   Cited 2,384 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that reasonable attorney's fees includes the costs of paralegals' time

  2. Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University

    132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 520 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to consider that payment for the case was deferred for four years in discussion of whether a multiplier was warranted was an abuse of discretion

  3. Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.

    144 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 279 times
    Determining an award of attorney fees is a highly fact-specific task best left to discretion of the trial judge, familiar with the matter and with the expertise to determine the value of the legal services performed in the case

  4. Elliss v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

    218 Cal.App.4th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument "that compliance with the educational requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6540 is in every case a prerequisite to the recovery of paralegal fees" where federal cases cited by the defendant "do not bind us, and in any event they do not hold, and we have found no California state cases holding" such is required

  5. Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn.

    21 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding “courts should defer to the board's authority and presumed expertise” when it discharges its duty to repair a common area after a “reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the best interests of the community association and its members”

  6. Ritter Rutter v. the Churchill Condo

    166 Cal.App.4th 103 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 55 times
    Likening an association's duty of care over areas under its control to that of a landlord's

  7. Sundance v. Municipal Court

    192 Cal.App.3d 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 73 times
    Requiring trial court to inquire "whether time spent on an unsuccessful legal theory was reasonably incurred"

  8. Lezama v. Justice Court

    190 Cal.App.3d 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times
    In Lezama v. Justice Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 15, 235 Cal.Rptr. 238 (Lezama), a number of misdemeanants sued the court in which they had been convicted, claiming they had been improperly assessed public defender fees without a determination as to their ability to pay.

  9. Section 3479 - What constitutes nuisance

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3479   Cited 637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining "nuisance"