Nelson v. Anderson
72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 289 times 5 Legal AnalysesFinding that obligations violated by limiting plaintiff's role were owed to the corporation because the decisions "amount[ed] to alleged misfeasance or negligence in managing the corporation's business, causing the business to be a total failure"
Bender v. Cnty. of L.A.
217 Cal.App.4th 968 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 139 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that where an arrest is unlawful and excessive force is applied in making the arrest, there has been coercion in violation of the Bane Act
American Airlines v. Sheppard
96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 109 timesHolding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"
Culbertson v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc.
190 Cal.App.3d 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 112 timesIn Culbertson, the plaintiff rejected a settlement offer because it would have resulted in zero recovery due to a workers' compensation lien. (Culbertson, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 708.)
Science Applications Internat. v. Superior Court
39 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 55 times 1 Legal AnalysesAffirming costs for graphic exhibit boards and video presented to the jury, as essentially "a computerized form of blowup or model which was apparently, in the opinion of the trial court, reasonably helpful to the trier of fact and possibly fitting within the category of ‘models and blowups’ " under the statute
Green v. County of Riverside
238 Cal.App.4th 1363 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 19 timesAffirming award of trial technician cost under this framework
Crib Retaining Walls, Inc. v. NBS/Lowry, Inc.
47 Cal.App.4th 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 27 timesIn Crib Retaining Walls, Inc. v. NBS/Lowry, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 886 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 850], the plaintiffs filed a construction defect lawsuit against Crib Retaining Walls, Inc., which cross-complained against NBS/Lowry, Inc., seeking equitable indemnity and contribution.
Henderson v. J.M. Smucker Co.
CASE NO. CV 10-4524-GHK (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) Cited 3 timesCASE NO. CV 10-4524-GHK (VBKx) 02-28-2014 Mary Henderson., Plaintiff, v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Defendant. GEORGE H. KING Chief United States District Judge JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Court's October 23, 2012 Order and its February 28, 2014 Order, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant J.M. Smucker Company are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff shall take nothing by this Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 28, 2014 /s/_________ GEORGE H. KING Chief United States
Lindy v. McChesney
141 Cal. 351 (Cal. 1903) Cited 8 timesSac. No. 988. December 21, 1903. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County denying a motion to retax and apportion costs. Edward I. Jones, Judge. Woods Levinsky, and James H. Budd, for Appellant. Denson, Oatman Denson, for Plaintiff-Respondent. John A. Percy, and Budd Thompson, for Martha E. McChesney et al., Respondents. James A. Louttit, and Louttit Middlecoff, for William A. Cowdery, Respondent. H.R. McNoble, for Rosa B. Hunt, Respondent. E.O. Larkins, for Henry West et
Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal
Cal. R. 8.278 Cited 5,192 times(a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice