Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.
178 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 324 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that meals are not recoverable under Cal. Civ. P.Code § 1033.5.
Seever v. Copley Press, Inc.
141 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 88 times 4 Legal AnalysesConcluding "the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding travel costs to depositions"
Benson v. Kwikset Corp.
152 Cal.App.4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 58 times 1 Legal AnalysesVacating judgment and remanding to permit plaintiffs to seek leave to amend
Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc.
17 Cal.4th 436 (Cal. 1998) Cited 71 times 1 Legal AnalysesConsidering similar language in the California Fair Equipment and Housing Act
Acosta v. SI Corp.
129 Cal.App.4th 1370 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 55 timesIn Acosta, a group of homeowners jointly sued SI Corporation on a single theory—product liability for an allegedly faulty mesh used in the construction of their homes—and lost.
Posey v. State of California
180 Cal.App.3d 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 48 timesHolding that removal of a vehicle under § 22561 is "discretionary in nature"
Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co.
217 Cal.App.2d 678 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) Cited 93 timesIn Oak Grove SchoolDist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 288] defendants claimed costs and disbursements under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255a after the plaintiff school district abandoned its eminent domain proceeding.
Perko's Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises
4 Cal.App.4th 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 29 timesDocket No. F015043. March 5, 1992. [Opinion certified for partial publication.] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I and IV. Appeal from Superior Court of Fresno County, No. 423282-3, James L. Quaschnick, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Nast for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lawrence A. Haun and Roger A. Brown for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION STONE (W.A.), Acting P.J. In the published portion of this opinion we will conclude
Sequoia Vacuum Systems v. Stransky
229 Cal.App.2d 281 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964) Cited 40 timesHolding that a fiduciary duty existed where the defendant was a "managerial employee and director of the . . . corporation"
Moss v. Underwriters' Report, Inc.
12 Cal.2d 266 (Cal. 1938) Cited 49 timesIn Moss v. Underwriters' Report, Inc. (1938), 12 Cal.2d 266, 274-275 [9-12] [ 83 P.2d 503], it was pointed out that the statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033) which provides that a successful litigant furnish a memorandum of his costs and "necessary disbursements" in the action "does not contemplate that a defendant must pay all of the successful plaintiff's expenses in connection with the litigation," and that "the right to reimbursement for expenses depends upon the statutory provisions concerning costs and not upon the necessity, in the mind of the litigant, or his counsel, for the outlay."
Section 1032 - Right of prevailing party to recover costs
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032 Cited 1,882 times 13 Legal AnalysesGoverning awards of litigation costs other than fees
Section 1033.5 - Items allowable as costs
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5 Cited 1,504 times 2 Legal AnalysesPermitting various types of service as costs
Rule 3.1700 - Prejudgment costs
Cal. R. 3.1700 Cited 277 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