13 Cited authorities

Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.
158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 280 times
Affirming trial court's award of fees, without allocation, where contract and misrepresentation claims arose from same operative facts
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
Grappo v. Coventry Financial Corp.
235 Cal.App.3d 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 67 times
Concluding trial judge acted well within its discretion when they ordered the "initial threshold" issue tried first
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"
Nelson v. Abraham
29 Cal.2d 745 (Cal. 1947) Cited 145 times
Noting that profit sharing is a factor in determining whether a partnership exists
Constans v. Ross
106 Cal.App.2d 381 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951) Cited 33 times
In Constans v. Ross (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 381, 386 the court cited the same definition, and stated: "Ordinarily the existence of a partnership is evidenced by the right of the respective parties to participate in the profits and losses and in the management of the business."
National Electric Supply Co. v. Mount Diablo Unified School District
187 Cal.App.2d 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) Cited 18 times
In National Elec. Supply Co. v. Mount Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 864], plaintiff sued the property owner and a subcontractor to foreclose a mechanic's lien for supplies furnished to the subcontractor.
Singleton v. Fuller
118 Cal.App.2d 733 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953) Cited 21 times
Docket No. 4526. June 26, 1953. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. Joe L. Shell, Judge. Affirmed. Bertrand L. Comparet for Appellant. McInnis Hamilton and John W. McInnis for Respondent. GRIFFIN, J. Plaintiff and respondent brought this action against defendants Robert L. Fuller and Noel Tweed, alleging in the first cause of action that about July 1, 1948, an account was stated between plaintiff and defendants in the sum of $2,702.17. In a second cause of action it
Keyes v. Nims
43 Cal.App. 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919) Cited 47 times
Stating that "one of the distinctions differentiating a partnership from a joint adventure lies in the fact that, while a partnership is ordinarily formed for the transaction of a general business of a particular kind, a joint adventure relates to a single transaction, although the latter may comprehend a business to be continued for a period of years"
Hansen v. Burford
212 Cal. 100 (Cal. 1931) Cited 28 times
In Hansen v. Burford, 212 Cal. 100 [ 297 P. 908], plaintiff brought an action in assumpsit against certain named defendants to recover the price of lumber alleged to have been sold to them.

Eng vs. Brown

13 Cited authorities

Affirming trial court's award of fees, without allocation, where contract and misrepresentation claims arose from same operative facts

Holding "fees are not authorized for exhibits not used at trial" under section 1033.5, subdivision

Concluding trial judge acted well within its discretion when they ordered the "initial threshold" issue tried first

Noting that profit sharing is a factor in determining whether a partnership exists

In Constans v. Ross (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 381, 386 the court cited the same definition, and stated: "Ordinarily the existence of a partnership is evidenced by the right of the respective parties to participate in the profits and losses and in the management of the business."

In National Elec. Supply Co. v. Mount Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 864], plaintiff sued the property owner and a subcontractor to foreclose a mechanic's lien for supplies furnished to the subcontractor.

In Hansen v. Burford, 212 Cal. 100 [ 297 P. 908], plaintiff brought an action in assumpsit against certain named defendants to recover the price of lumber alleged to have been sold to them.