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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alpersongreen2 sentences2021(Ibid.; see also Reynolds, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 129 [“Had plaintiff prevailed on its cause of action claiming defendants were in fact the alter egos of the corporation [citation], defendants would have been liable on the notes”].) We conclude that the trial court in the malpractice action correctly found that TDS was entitled to fees on the Thompsons’ cross-complaint under the rule that a prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorney fees pursuant to a contract provision if the opposing party would have been entitled to attorney fees had it prevailed. 2021(Ibid.; see also Reynolds, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 129 [“Had plaintiff prevailed on its cause of action claiming defendants were in fact the alter egos of the corporation [citation], defendants would have been liable on the notes”].) We conclude that the trial court in the malpractice action correctly found that TDS was entitled to fees on the Thompsons’ cross-complaint under the rule that a prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorney fees pursuant to a contract provision if the opposing party would have been entitled to attorney fees had it prevailed. | 1 | 1 |
Paolini v. Sulpriziogreen2 sentences1948(Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683, 685-687 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Thompson v. Modern School of B. & C., 183 Cal. 112, 117-118 [ 190 P. 451 ]; see Prosser on Torts [1941], 775; 12 Cal.Jur. 782.) [4] Appellant relies, however, on Schmidt v. Mesmer, 116 Cal. 267, 270-271 [ 48 P. 54 ], where the court said: "If, after his knowledge of what he claims to have been the fraud, he elects not to rescind, but to adopt the contract and sue for damages, he must stand toward the other party at arm's length; he must on his part comply with the terms of the contract; he must not ask favors of the other party, or o 1948(Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683, 685-687 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Thompson v. Modern School of B. & C., 183 Cal. 112, 117-118 [ 190 P. 451 ]; see Prosser on Torts [1941], 775; 12 Cal.Jur. 782.) [4] Appellant relies, however, on Schmidt v. Mesmer, 116 Cal. 267, 270-271 [ 48 P. 54 ], where the court said: "If, after his knowledge of what he claims to have been the fraud, he elects not to rescind, but to adopt the contract and sue for damages, he must stand toward the other party at arm's length; he must on his part comply with the terms of the contract; he must not ask favors of the other party, or o | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Modern School of Business & Correspondencegreen2 sentences1948(Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683, 685-687 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Thompson v. Modern School of B. & C., 183 Cal. 112, 117-118 [ 190 P. 451 ]; see Prosser on Torts [1941], 775; 12 Cal.Jur. 782.) [4] Appellant relies, however, on Schmidt v. Mesmer, 116 Cal. 267, 270-271 [ 48 P. 54 ], where the court said: "If, after his knowledge of what he claims to have been the fraud, he elects not to rescind, but to adopt the contract and sue for damages, he must stand toward the other party at arm's length; he must on his part comply with the terms of the contract; he must not ask favors of the other party, or o 1948(Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683, 685-687 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Thompson v. Modern School of B. & C., 183 Cal. 112, 117-118 [ 190 P. 451 ]; see Prosser on Torts [1941], 775; 12 Cal.Jur. 782.) [4] Appellant relies, however, on Schmidt v. Mesmer, 116 Cal. 267, 270-271 [ 48 P. 54 ], where the court said: "If, after his knowledge of what he claims to have been the fraud, he elects not to rescind, but to adopt the contract and sue for damages, he must stand toward the other party at arm's length; he must on his part comply with the terms of the contract; he must not ask favors of the other party, or o | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Mesmergreen2 sentences1948(Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683, 685-687 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Thompson v. Modern School of B. & C., 183 Cal. 112, 117-118 [ 190 P. 451 ]; see Prosser on Torts [1941], 775; 12 Cal.Jur. 782.) [4] Appellant relies, however, on Schmidt v. Mesmer, 116 Cal. 267, 270-271 [ 48 P. 54 ], where the court said: "If, after his knowledge of what he claims to have been the fraud, he elects not to rescind, but to adopt the contract and sue for damages, he must stand toward the other party at arm's length; he must on his part comply with the terms of the contract; he must not ask favors of the other party, or o 1948(Paolini v. Sulprizio, 201 Cal. 683, 685-687 [ 258 P. 380 ]; Thompson v. Modern School of B. & C., 183 Cal. 112, 117-118 [ 190 P. 451 ]; see Prosser on Torts [1941], 775; 12 Cal.Jur. 782.) [4] Appellant relies, however, on Schmidt v. Mesmer, 116 Cal. 267, 270-271 [ 48 P. 54 ], where the court said: "If, after his knowledge of what he claims to have been the fraud, he elects not to rescind, but to adopt the contract and sue for damages, he must stand toward the other party at arm's length; he must on his part comply with the terms of the contract; he must not ask favors of the other party, or o | 1 | 1 |
Moskovitz v. Lefrancoisgreen2 sentences1942(See Ackermam, v. Schultz, 178 Cal. 190 [ 172 Pac. 609 ]; Moskovitz v. LeFrancois, 121 Cal. App. 310, 313 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 1049 ]; 5 Cal. Jur. 193.) Also, it is the rule that new parties may be brought in under a cross-complaint where it is made apparent that their presence is essential to the complete determination of the controversy between parties already before the court. 1942(See Ackermam, v. Schultz, 178 Cal. 190 [ 172 Pac. 609 ]; Moskovitz v. LeFrancois, 121 Cal. App. 310, 313 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 1049 ]; 5 Cal. Jur. 193.) Also, it is the rule that new parties may be brought in under a cross-complaint where it is made apparent that their presence is essential to the complete determination of the controversy between parties already before the court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2022(See id. at pp. 952-953, 960-965.) 16 cross-complaint against him [or her],’ regardless of whether such claims were related to those upon which the suit was brought.” (Id. at p. 86, quoting § 428.10, subd. (a).) The court in ZF Micro Devices ultimately concluded that “a defendant’s cross-complaint against the plaintiff, irrespective of whether it is related to the matters asserted in the complaint, is entitled to the benefit of the tolling doctrine.” (ZF Micro Devices, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 92 .) In reaching this decision, the court relied primarily on pre-1971 California Supreme Court to 2022(ZF Micro Devices, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 85 .) With limited exceptions, a party sued in a complaint or cross-complaint may file what is commonly termed a “permissive” cross-complaint, that is, “a cross-complaint setting forth . . . [¶] (a) Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him.” (§ 428.10, italics added.) By contrast, if a defendant’s cause of action against the plaintiff is “related to” the subject matter of the complaint, the failure to plead it in a cross-complaint will bar the defendant from asserting it in any lat | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
green
1 sentence2022(ZF Micro Devices, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 85 .) With limited exceptions, a party sued in a complaint or cross-complaint may file what is commonly termed a “permissive” cross-complaint, that is, “a cross-complaint setting forth . . . [¶] (a) Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him.” (§ 428.10, italics added.) By contrast, if a defendant’s cause of action against the plaintiff is “related to” the subject matter of the complaint, the failure to plead it in a cross-complaint will bar the defendant from asserting it in any lat | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jones v. Mortimer
green
1 sentence2022(See id. at pp. 952-953, 960-965.) 16 cross-complaint against him [or her],’ regardless of whether such claims were related to those upon which the suit was brought.” (Id. at p. 86, quoting § 428.10, subd. (a).) The court in ZF Micro Devices ultimately concluded that “a defendant’s cross-complaint against the plaintiff, irrespective of whether it is related to the matters asserted in the complaint, is entitled to the benefit of the tolling doctrine.” (ZF Micro Devices, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 92 .) In reaching this decision, the court relied primarily on pre-1971 California Supreme Court to | 1 | 2022–2022 |
American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court
yellow
1 sentence1979(AMA, *736 supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 607 .) It did not make the filing of a cross-complaint a requirement for relief in all cases. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ackerman v. Schultz
green
2 sentences1942(See Ackermam, v. Schultz, 178 Cal. 190 [ 172 Pac. 609 ]; Moskovitz v. LeFrancois, 121 Cal. App. 310, 313 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 1049 ]; 5 Cal. Jur. 193.) Also, it is the rule that new parties may be brought in under a cross-complaint where it is made apparent that their presence is essential to the complete determination of the controversy between parties already before the court. 1942(See Ackermam, v. Schultz, 178 Cal. 190 [ 172 Pac. 609 ]; Moskovitz v. LeFrancois, 121 Cal. App. 310, 313 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 1049 ]; 5 Cal. Jur. 193.) Also, it is the rule that new parties may be brought in under a cross-complaint where it is made apparent that their presence is essential to the complete determination of the controversy between parties already before the court. | 1 | 1942–1942 |