Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Caution
As of: Apr 11, 2015
PLCM GROUP, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID DREXLER, Defendant,
Cross-complainant and Appellant; DEARBORN INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,
Cross-defendants and Respondents.
No. S080201.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
22 Cal. 4th 1084; 997 P.2d 511; 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198; 2000 Cal. LEXIS 3716; 2000 Cal.
Daily Op. Service 3621; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 4831; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5892
As Modified June 2,
Page 4
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Positive
As of: Apr 11, 2015
In re the Marriage of ROBERT and PAMELA GREENBERG. ROBERT N.
GREENBERG, Appellant, v. PAMELA P. GREENBERG, Respondent.
No. B226064
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,
DIVISION SIX
194 Cal. App. 4th 1095; 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 238; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 502
HEADNOTES-1
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Positive
As of: Apr 11, 2015
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THEODORE ABRAHAM COHEN et
al., Defendants and Appellants
Crim. No. 15353
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One
12 Cal. App. 3d 298; 90 Cal. Rptr. 612; 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1629
Page 26
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Positive
As of: Apr 11, 2015
DAVID J. DUCHROW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERNESTINE FORREST,
Defendant and Appellant.
B233736
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,
DIVISION ONE
215 Cal. App. 4th 1359; 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 194; 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 344
Page 13
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Caution
As of: Apr 11, 2015
In re the Marriage of CAROLINE ANN and JAMES PAUL GREEN. JAMES
PAUL GREEN, Appellant, v. CAROLINE ANN GREEN, Respondent
No. A039868
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
213 Cal. App. 3d 14; 261 Cal. Rptr. 294; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1045
Page 2
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Caution
As of: Apr 11, 2015
SORRELL TROPE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BERTRAM BERNARD
KATZ, Defendant and Respondent.
No. S043227.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 Cal. 4th 274; 902 P.2d 259; 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241; 1995 Cal. LEXIS 5384; 95 Cal.
Daily Op. Service 7738; 95 Daily Journal DAR 13193
MOSK, J.
In this appeal we consider whether an attorney who
chooses to litigate in propria persona rather than retain
another attorney to represent him in an action to enforce a
contract containing an attorney fee provision can
nevertheless recover "reasonable attorney's fees" under
Civil Code section 1717 (hereafter section 1717) as
compensation for the time and effort expended and the
professional business opportunities lost as a result. We
shall conclude that such an attorney litigant cannot
recover such fees under section 1717, and hence that the
judgment of the Court of Appeal so holding must be
affirmed. Were we to construe the statute otherwise, we
would in effect create two separate classes of pro se
litigants--those who are attorneys and those who are
not--and grant different rights and remedies to each. We
find no support for such disparate treatment either in the
language of section 1717, in the legislative policy
underlying it, or in fairness and logic.
FACTS
Page 10
Page 1
1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Caution
As of: Apr 11, 2015
SANDS & ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN JUKNAVORIAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
B232686
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,
DIVISION ONE
209 Cal. App. 4th 1269; 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725; 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1058
HEADNOTES-1
(8)
Costs
27--Attorney
Fees--Contract
Provisions--Fees Not Allowed--Law Firm Represented
by Of Counsel Attorneys.--A law firm publicly
designated two attorneys as "of counsel." Those
attorneys, on behalf of the firm, recovered unpaid
attorney fees owed by a former client. The firm could not
Page 6