§Why CasetextPricing

J.R. MARKETING, L.L.C. v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE [To be called and continued to late May or June 2015 oral argument calendar]

Respondent, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Reply Brief on the Merits

20 Cited authorities

  1. Buss v. Superior Court

    16 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 682 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurer may seek reimbursement of defense costs that may be allocated to claims that are not even potentially covered because a party desiring relief carries the burden of proof

  2. Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 1305 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 332 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendant's action was sufficient for standing

  3. Chavez v. City of Los Angles

    47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 287 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success

  4. Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron

    177 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 233 times
    Noting that if an appellant fails to support a claim with reasoned argument and citations to authority the court of appeal may treat that claim as waived

  5. Coscia v. McKenna Cuneo

    25 Cal.4th 1194 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 287 times
    Holding that, in light of compelling considerations peculiar to a legal malpractice claim arising out of a criminal conviction, "an intact conviction precludes recovery in a legal malpractice action even when ordinary collateral estoppel principles otherwise are not controlling, for example because a conviction was based upon a plea of guilty that would not be conclusive in a subsequent civil action involving the same issues"

  6. Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.

    17 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 231 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding each insurer has a duty to defend "separate and independent from the others "

  7. California Medical Assn. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc.

    94 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 155 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "action for unjust enrichment does not lie where . . . express binding agreements exist and define the parties' rights"; characterizing claim based on unjust enrichment as "quasi-contract" claim

  8. Banning v. Newdow

    119 Cal.App.4th 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 106 times
    Holding bills redacted to protect attorney-client privilege enabled the defendant to challenge the reasonableness of attorney fees

  9. Or. Laborers-Employers v. Philip Morris Inc.

    185 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 120 times
    Holding medical costs resulting from injury to smokers easily established

  10. Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc.

    223 Cal.App.4th 1309 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 78 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that movant may support a fees motion with "declarations or redacted or unredacted timesheets or billing records"

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or