§Why CasetextPricing

TRACT 19051 HOMEOWNERS v. KEMP

Respondent, Eric Yedell, Petition for Review

21 Cited authorities

  1. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,214 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

  2. Santisas v. Goodin

    17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 1,014 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney's fees can be awarded only if provided by contract or authorized by statute

  3. Trope v. Katz

    11 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 500 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Determining that under section 1021, opposing parties may enter into an "agreement, express or implied" allocating attorney's fees

  4. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson

    25 Cal.3d 124 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 646 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff liable for attorney's fees incurred by defendant in prevailing on defense of plaintiff's contract claims, where contract provided only for attorney's fees to plaintiff for collection of a promissory note

  5. Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC

    162 Cal.App.4th 858 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 266 times
    Finding that duplication is not grounds for demurrer and that a motion to strike is the proper way to address duplicative material

  6. Sears v. Baccaglio

    60 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prevailing party analysis under § 1717 is appropriate in contract actions because the prevailing party is not necessarily the party with the net monetary recovery

  7. Jankey v. Lee

    55 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that the doctrine of federal preemption did not preclude the court from awarding attorney fees to defendant under the Disabled Persons Act (§ 54 et seq.) in a superior court lawsuit that also asserted a claim under the ADA

  8. Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands

    92 Cal.App.4th 1247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 71 times
    Rejecting claim that Bourgerie established that a building restriction is an interest in real property

  9. Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc.

    201 Cal.App.3d 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 73 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Denying attorney fees based on an attorney fee provision in a contract where the contract was illegal and void but allowing fees where a party "prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent"

  10. Mepco Services, Inc. v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist.

    189 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. D055018. November 2, 2010. [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III.A. through E. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 37-2008-00086601-CU-BC-CTL, Frederic L. Link, Judge. Bergman Dacey, Gregory M. Bergman, Mark W. Waterman and Arash Beral for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Carno Carlton, Anna M. Carno and Andrew C. Carlton for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant