§Why CasetextPricing

Motion_for_attorney_fees

Motion

6 Cited authorities

  1. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,805 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,251 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

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

    132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 522 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

  4. Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin

    226 Cal.App.4th 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 112 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in employing Laffey matrix in San Francisco litigation

  5. Arace v. Medico Invs., LLC

    S262909 (Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)   1 Legal Analyses

    S262909 07-29-2020 ARACE (MELANIE) v. MEDICO INVESTMENTS, LLC E071194 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2 Petition for review denied

  6. Section 12 - [Repealed]

    Okla. Stat. tit. 1 § 12

    Okla. Stat. tit. 1, § 12 Laws 1915, HB 476, c. 287, § 2, emerg. eff. 4/2/1915; Repealed by Laws 1984, HB 1850, c. 163, § 21, eff. 11/1/1984.