35 Cited authorities

  1. Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif

    39 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,147 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the question is whether "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited" (citation and punctuation omitted)
  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,212 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
  3. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche

    31 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 995 times
    Holding that malicious prosecution claim arising from attorney's representation of client was subject to anti-SLAPP statute
  4. Zamos v. Stroud

    32 Cal.4th 958 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 512 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the tort of malicious prosecution includes "continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause"
  5. Lee v. Hanley

    61 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 311 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion
  6. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert Oliker

    47 Cal.3d 863 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 707 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the question for the probable cause analysis in a malicious prosecution action is whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim was tenable
  7. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 938 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself
  8. Chavez v. City of Los Angles

    47 Cal.4th 970 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 285 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reduced fee award is appropriate where a claimant achieves only limited success
  9. Viner v. Sweet

    30 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 303 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a plaintiff must show "but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result"
  10. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough

    2014 IL 114271 (Ill. 2014)   Cited 190 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the defendant had forfeited its argument raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider
  11. Section 28-3-104 - Personal tort actions; actions against certain professionals

    Tenn. Code § 28-3-104   Cited 1,583 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth a one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims
  12. Section 413.140 - Actions to be brought within one year

    Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140   Cited 1,239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Establishing a limitations period of one year for personal injury actions
  13. Section 2305.11 - Time limitations for bringing certain actions

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11   Cited 1,185 times
    Creating a basic one year limitations term for legal malpractice actions
  14. Section 6068 - Duties of attorney

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068   Cited 910 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Requiring attorney "[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client"
  15. Section 340.5 - Health care provider's professional negligence

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5   Cited 604 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth three-year statute of limitations and reasons why it may be tolled
  16. Section 340.6 - Attorney's wrongful act or omission in performance of professional services

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6   Cited 592 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that limitations period on plaintiff's legal malpractice action did not begin until plaintiff had suffered "appreciable harm" and "mere breach of . . . duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm— not yet realized—does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence"
  17. Section 15-1-35 - Limitations applicable to actions for certain torts

    Miss. Code § 15-1-35   Cited 315 times
    Providing that "all actions for slanderous words concerning the person or title, for failure to employ, and for libels, shall be commenced within one year next after the cause of such action accrued and not after"
  18. Section 60-514 - Actions limited to one year

    Kan. Stat. § 60-514   Cited 206 times
    Setting forth a one year statute of limitations for assault and battery
  19. Section 8.01-248 - Personal actions for which no other limitation is specified

    Va. Code § 8.01-248   Cited 138 times
    Covering personal actions not otherwise specified
  20. Section 335 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335   Cited 137 times

    The periods prescribed for the commencement of actions other than for the recovery of real property, are as follows: Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 335 Enacted 1872.