Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2023–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ketchum v. Mosesgreen2 sentences2025The burden is on the objector to show error. [Citation.]” (LCPFV, LLC, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 760; see Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132 ; Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 140, 153 .) 1. 2025The burden is on the objector to show error. [Citation.]” (LCPFV, LLC, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 760; see Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132 ; Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 140, 153 .) 1. | 2 | 3 |
Lossing v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2023The record shows Smith acted uncivilly, and his incivility was unjustified Snoeck argues the court impermissibly applied its downward multiplier to punish Smith for violating a “fictional” “ ‘civility’ rule.” Incivility may not serve as a basis for attorney discipline by the state bar—yet—but all licensed California attorneys are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner.9 9 The California Civility Task Force’s (CCTF) initial September 2021 report recommended the State Bar amend its disciplinary rules to prohibit “repeated incivility and clarify[ ] that civility is not inconsistent with 2023The record shows Smith acted uncivilly, and his incivility was unjustified Snoeck argues the court impermissibly applied its downward multiplier to punish Smith for violating a “fictional” “ ‘civility’ rule.” Incivility may not serve as a basis for attorney discipline by the state bar—yet—but all licensed California attorneys are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner.9 9 The California Civility Task Force’s (CCTF) initial September 2021 report recommended the State Bar amend its disciplinary rules to prohibit “repeated incivility and clarify[ ] that civility is not inconsistent with | 2 | 2 |
Lasalle v. Vogelgreen2 sentences2023The record shows Smith acted uncivilly, and his incivility was unjustified Snoeck argues the court impermissibly applied its downward multiplier to punish Smith for violating a “fictional” “ ‘civility’ rule.” Incivility may not serve as a basis for attorney discipline by the state bar—yet—but all licensed California attorneys are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner.9 9 The California Civility Task Force’s (CCTF) initial September 2021 report recommended the State Bar amend its disciplinary rules to prohibit “repeated incivility and clarify[ ] that civility is not inconsistent with 2023The record shows Smith acted uncivilly, and his incivility was unjustified Snoeck argues the court impermissibly applied its downward multiplier to punish Smith for violating a “fictional” “ ‘civility’ rule.” Incivility may not serve as a basis for attorney discipline by the state bar—yet—but all licensed California attorneys are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner.9 9 The California Civility Task Force’s (CCTF) initial September 2021 report recommended the State Bar amend its disciplinary rules to prohibit “repeated incivility and clarify[ ] that civility is not inconsistent with | 2 | 2 |
People v. Shaziergreen2 sentences2023The record shows Smith acted uncivilly, and his incivility was unjustified Snoeck argues the court impermissibly applied its downward multiplier to punish Smith for violating a “fictional” “ ‘civility’ rule.” Incivility may not serve as a basis for attorney discipline by the state bar—yet—but all licensed California attorneys are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner.9 9 The California Civility Task Force’s (CCTF) initial September 2021 report recommended the State Bar amend its disciplinary rules to prohibit “repeated incivility and clarify[ ] that civility is not inconsistent with 2023The record shows Smith acted uncivilly, and his incivility was unjustified Snoeck argues the court impermissibly applied its downward multiplier to punish Smith for violating a “fictional” “ ‘civility’ rule.” Incivility may not serve as a basis for attorney discipline by the state bar—yet—but all licensed California attorneys are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner.9 9 The California Civility Task Force’s (CCTF) initial September 2021 report recommended the State Bar amend its disciplinary rules to prohibit “repeated incivility and clarify[ ] that civility is not inconsistent with | 2 | 2 |
Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Boardgreen1 sentence2025(Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 .) The purpose of the multiplier “is to compensate for extrinsic factors such as the risk of nonpayment (the contingency factor), the public interest advanced by the case, the difficulty of the issues involved, and the skill of the attorneys.” (Caldera, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 1135, citing Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1135 (Ketchum); see also, Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Board (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 879 [considering extent to which the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; whether th | 1 | 1 |
Maria P. v. Rilesgreen1 sentence2025All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Finally, and importantly, “As the party challenging the fee award, [Hemphill] has the affirmative obligation to provide an adequate record so that we may assess whether the trial court abused its discretion; failure to do so may result in affirmance.” (Gutierrez, at p. 393; see also Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [“It is the burden of the party challenging the fee award on app | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2025The burden is on the objector to show error. [Citation.]” (LCPFV, LLC, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 760; see Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132 ; Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 140, 153 .) 1. 2025The burden is on the objector to show error.” (LCPFV, supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 759; Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132 ; Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 140, 153 .) 2. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Greene v. Dillingham Construction N.A.
green
1 sentence2025The burden is on the objector to show error.” (Pollock, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 1195.) 44 To determine an appropriate amount of an attorneys’ fees award, the trial court must first establish the “lodestar,” which is “ ‘the product of the number of hours worked by the attorneys and a reasonable fee per hour.’ ” (Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 , quoting Greene v. Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 418, 422 .) After setting the lodestar, the trial court also has the discretion to apply a “multiplier” to increase or decrease the ultimate amount awarded, base | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Denham v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2025All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Finally, and importantly, “As the party challenging the fee award, [Hemphill] has the affirmative obligation to provide an adequate record so that we may assess whether the trial court abused its discretion; failure to do so may result in affirmance.” (Gutierrez, at p. 393; see also Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [“It is the burden of the party challenging the fee award on app | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pope v. Pope
green
1 sentence2025The burden is on the objector to show error.” (Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734 , 743.) And again: “[A]n abuse of discretion is never presumed but must be proved by the party asserting it.” (Pope v. Pope (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 537, 540 .) And again: “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc.
green
1 sentence2025(Laffitte, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 488 ; Rojas v. HSBC Card Services Inc. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 860 , 873.) Two methods for determining whether a fee is reasonable are the lodestar formula and the percentage-of-recovery approach. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP
green
2 sentences2025The burden is on the objector to show error.” (Pollock, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 1195.) 44 To determine an appropriate amount of an attorneys’ fees award, the trial court must first establish the “lodestar,” which is “ ‘the product of the number of hours worked by the attorneys and a reasonable fee per hour.’ ” (Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 , quoting Greene v. Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 418, 422 .) After setting the lodestar, the trial court also has the discretion to apply a “multiplier” to increase or decrease the ultimate amount awarded, base 2025(Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 .) The purpose of the multiplier “is to compensate for extrinsic factors such as the risk of nonpayment (the contingency factor), the public interest advanced by the case, the difficulty of the issues involved, and the skill of the attorneys.” (Caldera, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 1135, citing Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1135 (Ketchum); see also, Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. California Franchise Tax Board (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 841, 879 [considering extent to which the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; whether th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.