§Why CasetextPricing

MARTINEZ v. BROWNCO CONSTRUCTION

Appellant’s Petition for Review

25 Cited authorities

  1. Scott Co. v. Blount, Inc.

    20 Cal.4th 1103 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 286 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the plaintiff was a prevailing party despite the fact that the plaintiff originally sought $2 million in damages, but recovered only $440,000

  2. Nelson v. Anderson

    72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 278 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that obligations violated by limiting plaintiff's role were owed to the corporation because the decisions "amount[ed] to alleged misfeasance or negligence in managing the corporation's business, causing the business to be a total failure"

  3. People v. Dubon

    90 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 127 times
    Finding insufficient a pre-printed statement identical to the one here

  4. American Airlines v. Sheppard

    96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

  5. Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc.

    158 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 85 times
    Finding a valid section 998 settlement when it resolved the complaint between the parties and not the cross-complaint between the same parties

  6. Barella v. Exchange Bank

    84 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 97 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "while [California's similar offer of judgment] statute contemplates that an offer made pursuant to its terms may properly include nonmonetary terms and conditions, the offer itself must, nonetheless, be unconditional" (footnote omitted)

  7. T.M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court

    36 Cal.3d 273 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 141 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offers are revocable until acceptance

  8. Elite Show Services, Inc. v. Staffpro

    119 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the comparison is not uncertain when the § 998 offer includes "reasonable" attorney fees and costs rather than a specific amount when there is a mechanism for determining the amount of attorney fees allowable

  9. El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat and Locker Service, Inc.

    150 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 52 times
    Affirming trial court's allowance of costs incurred in creating an exhibit summarizing important financial data, and observing that "[t]he idea that the cost is not allowable because the exhibit could have been created using adding machines, ledger paper, and pencils instead of an electronic database is antiquated"

  10. Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist.

    52 Cal.3d 266 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 79 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that judgment could be entered under California statute based on acceptance of offer during statutory 30–day period, even though the accepting party made counteroffers before accepting the original offer

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer