§Why CasetextPricing

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON v. J-M MANUFACTURING

Amicus Curiae Brief of Amici Law Firms

34 Cited authorities

  1. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,674 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

  2. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

    517 U.S. 559 (1996)   Cited 2,852 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

  3. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,874 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

  4. Burrow v. Arce

    997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999)   Cited 489 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an attorney who breaches his fiduciary duty to his client may be required to forfeit all or part of his fee, irrespective of whether the breach caused the client actual damages

  5. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

  6. State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court

    31 Cal.4th 1026 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 229 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the defense of mitigation of damages applies to "many different sorts of legal claims" including statutory sexual harassment claims

  7. Simon v. San Paolo United States Holding Co., Inc.

    35 Cal.4th 1159 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 207 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding cases "approving ratio [between punitive and compensatory damages] of 3 or 4 to 1 . . . instructive"

  8. City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions Inc.

    38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 188 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Pen. Code, § 1424 inapplicable to civil action filed by city attorney

  9. Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc.

    1 Cal.5th 233 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 135 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an error regarding who should interpret a class action provision in an arbitration agreement was not amenable to prejudice analysis

  10. Pringle v. La Chapelle

    73 Cal.App.4th 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 186 times
    In Pringle, the state court held that a trial court may consider “ ‘the gravity and timing of the violation, its willfulness, its effect on the value of the lawyer's work for the client, any other threatened or actual harm to the client, and the adequacy of other remedies' ” in determining whether and to what extent fee forfeiture is appropriate.

  11. Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide

    Cal. Civ. Code § 3294   Cited 2,790 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

  12. Section 1598 - Object void

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1598   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void. Ca. Civ. Code § 1598 Enacted 1872.

  13. 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