§Why CasetextPricing

DESAULLES v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA

Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

47 Cited authorities

  1. Bob Jones University v. United States

    461 U.S. 574 (1983)   Cited 529 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal government's compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination outweighed plaintiffs' free exercise claim

  2. Santisas v. Goodin

    17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 1,016 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney's fees can be awarded only if provided by contract or authorized by statute

  3. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

    48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 551 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"

  4. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 413 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court may consider results obtained in awarding a fee multiplier

  5. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick

    60 Cal.App.4th 793 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 500 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agreement "must not only contain all the material terms but also express each in a reasonably definite manner."

  6. Goodman v. Lozano

    47 Cal.4th 1327 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 340 times
    Holding that where a plaintiff's prior settlement exceeds the award received at trial, plaintiff's net monetary recovery is zero and does not compel the trial court to designate such party as a prevailing party

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Levy v. Superior Court

    10 Cal.4th 578 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 195 times
    Holding that the signature of a party's attorney is insufficient to create an enforceable settlement under California law

  10. Chinn v. KMR Property Management

    166 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 106 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that statute allows for more than one party to qualify as a prevailing party under the mandatory cost award provision; Legislature could have, but did not, provide for trial court to exercise discretion to award costs in the event more than one party qualified as a prevailing party

  11. Section 760.11 - Administrative and civil remedies; construction

    Fla. Stat. § 760.11   Cited 354 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the attorney's fees provision should be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving Title VII

  12. Rule 8.490 - Filing, finality, and modification of decisions; rehearing; remittitur

    Cal. R. 8.490   Cited 1,050 times

    (a)Filing and modification of decisions Rule 8.264(a) and (c) govern the filing and modification of decisions in writ proceedings. (b)Finality of decision (1) Except as otherwise ordered by the court, the following decisions regarding petitions for writs within the court's original jurisdiction are final in the issuing court when filed: (A) An order denying or dismissing such a petition without issuance of an alternative writ, order to show cause, or writ of review; and (B) An order denying or dismissing

  13. Rule 8.208 - Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons

    Cal. R. 8.208   Cited 17 times

    (a)Purpose and intent The California Code of Judicial Ethics states the circumstances under which an appellate justice must disqualify himself or herself from a proceeding. The purpose of this rule is to provide justices of the Courts of Appeal with additional information to help them determine whether to disqualify themselves from a proceeding. (b)Application This rule applies in appeals in civil cases other than family, juvenile, guardianship, and conservatorship cases. (Subd (b) adopted effective