§Why CasetextPricing

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

Amicus Curiae Brief of The Association of Discipline Defense Counsel

41 Cited authorities

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

    517 U.S. 559 (1996)   Cited 2,850 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

  2. Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group

    532 U.S. 424 (2001)   Cited 800 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that constitutionality of jury's punitive damage award is subject to de novo review

  3. 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.

  4. Rodriguez v. Disner

    688 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 128 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that objectors conferred a benefit on the class warranting an award of attorney's fees where their objections were instrumental in causing the district court to deny fees to class counsel

  5. Mardirossian v. Ersoff

    153 Cal.App.4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 147 times
    Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in an attorney fees award case, in part, because, despite a lack of billing records, the Mardirossian attorneys had personal knowledge of the legal work they performed and "each testified at length concerning the work he or she performed, the complexity of the issues and the extent of the work that was required"

  6. Huskinson & Brown, LLP v. Wolf

    32 Cal.4th 453 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 142 times
    Describing quantum meruit as "the reasonable value" of professional services

  7. Slovensky v. Friedman

    142 Cal.App.4th 1518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the trial court's summary judgment for defendant in a fiduciary duty and legal malpractice action where the plaintiff failed to establish damages

  8. Dawson v. Toledano

    109 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that the mere fact that an attorney pursued an appeal that was later adjudged to be frivolous does not per se indicate that the attorney committed malpractice

  9. Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

    52 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that the value of pre-breach fees could not be decided until the case's conclusion, because only then would it be clear whether attorney's services proved of value to his former clients' recovery, and whether any recovery for services was appropriate

  10. Loube v. Loube

    64 Cal.App.4th 421 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 79 times
    Holding in attorney negligence claim that "the trial court correctly determined that the proper measure of appellants' damages was the difference between the value of their claims against Klapper and Yick and the award of damages they actually received" based on the principle that "an award of damages that exceeds actual loss runs afoul of the basic principle that damages are awarded to compensate for loss incurred"

  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,824 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  12. 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 2,788 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"