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 1 courts 1968–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Union Bank of Californiagreen1 sentence2021(See Jones v. Union Bank of California (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 542, 544 [explaining that provisions for attorney fees “in connection with” property and in proceedings “ ‘that in any way affect the exercise by Lender of its rights and remedies hereunder’ ” were relatively broad and “enforceable according to their terms”].) Elation also argues that its Settlement Agreement claim is more properly considered within the provision that requires each party bear their own fees “incurred in connection with the dismissal of the Lawsuit, and the 28 negotiation, execution and performance of this Settlement | 1 | 1 |
Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.green1 sentence2021(Barnhart, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 237 [“ ‘On appeal this court reviews a determination of the legal basis for an award of attorney fees de novo as a question of law’ ”].) The Stipulated Injunction provides for recovery of attorney fees incurred “ ‘in connection with entry and enforcement of’ ” its terms. | 1 | 1 |
Bree v. Wheelergreen2 sentences1982(See Bree v. Wheeler (1906) 4 Cal.App. 109, 113 [ 87 P. 255 ]; Federated Mutual Ins. 1982(See Bree v. Wheeler (1906) 4 Cal.App. 109, 113 [ 87 P. 255 ]; Federated Mutual Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Fouratt v. Goodmangreen1 sentence1982In the absence of some express provision in the settlement agreement for the subsequent imposition of a trust on the settlement proceeds should it be adjudicated there was no coverage under the policy or, at the very least, a mutually agreed reservation of rights of some sort, the settlement agreement was a full and final disposition of the disputed claim between American Motorists and Cowan (Fouratt v. Goodman (1928) 203 Cal. 252, 254 [ 263 P.2d 533 ]), and in the absence of evidence of fraud or mistake of a type sufficient to support rescission, the settlement agreement was a bar to recoupme | 1 | 1 |
Heller v. Hellergreen2 sentences1968The provisions in such amendment here pertinent are thus summarized in Heller v. Heller, 230 Cal.App.2d 679, 685 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 177 ]: “In 1961, the provision in the second paragraph of section 139 that a child support order in an integrated agreement may be modified was augmented by the addition of the following language 1 or order for support of the other party ’ . . . and the following qualification added to the end of the paragraph, ‘This paragraph shall not be construed to render an integrated property settlement agreement modifiable when there are no minor children of the parties to the 1968The provisions in such amendment here pertinent are thus summarized in Heller v. Heller, 230 Cal.App.2d 679, 685 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 177 ]: “In 1961, the provision in the second paragraph of section 139 that a child support order in an integrated agreement may be modified was augmented by the addition of the following language 1 or order for support of the other party ’ . . . and the following qualification added to the end of the paragraph, ‘This paragraph shall not be construed to render an integrated property settlement agreement modifiable when there are no minor children of the parties to the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mountain Air Enters., LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC
green
2 sentences2021Relying on Mountain Air, supra, 3 Cal.5th 744 , Elation argues its Settlement Agreement claim is not covered by the plain language of that provision. 2021Relying on Mountain Air, supra, 3 Cal.5th 744 , Elation argues its Settlement Agreement claim is not covered by the plain language of that provision. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Fiege v. Cooke
green
1 sentence2022The trial court held the individual settling defendants did not have to be present in court or personally consent to the settlement because “Westcor … is providing the defense for each of the settling Defendants and its representative, Barbara [Farrell], was specifically authorized to settle the matter on behalf of the settling Defendants.” The trial court found that “Ms. [Farrell] had full authority to settle the matter” and she “appeared telephonically, personally spoke to, and agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement at the hearing.” Further, “[t]he settling Defendants’ attorney, Ben | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022The trial court held the individual settling defendants did not have to be present in court or personally consent to the settlement because “Westcor … is providing the defense for each of the settling Defendants and its representative, Barbara [Farrell], was specifically authorized to settle the matter on behalf of the settling Defendants.” The trial court found that “Ms. [Farrell] had full authority to settle the matter” and she “appeared telephonically, personally spoke to, and agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement at the hearing.” Further, “[t]he settling Defendants’ attorney, Ben | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Apportionment “rests within the court’s sound discretion.” (Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 505 .) Given our conclusion that section 1717 applies only to the Settlement Agreement claim and cross-claim, as well as our reversal of the JNOV order on Elation’s NDA claim and remand for the trial court’s reconsideration of Elation’s motion for permanent injunctive and other relief, we also remand for reconsideration of whether and to what extent fees should be apportioned. 2021Apportionment “rests within the court’s sound discretion.” (Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 505 .) Given our conclusion that section 1717 applies only to the Settlement Agreement claim and cross-claim, as well as our reversal of the JNOV order on Elation’s NDA claim and remand for the trial court’s reconsideration of Elation’s motion for permanent injunctive and other relief, we also remand for reconsideration of whether and to what extent fees should be apportioned. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Santisas v. Goodin
green
2 sentences2021“If an action asserts both contract and tort or other noncontract claims, section 1717 applies only to attorney fees incurred to litigate the contract claims.” (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 615 .) Accordingly, once a trial court determines that a party is entitled to attorney fees, it may apportion fees incurred in the litigation between (1) the claims on the 29 contract providing for attorney fees and (2) the other claims. 2021“If an action asserts both contract and tort or other noncontract claims, section 1717 applies only to attorney fees incurred to litigate the contract claims.” (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 615 .) Accordingly, once a trial court determines that a party is entitled to attorney fees, it may apportion fees incurred in the litigation between (1) the claims on the 29 contract providing for attorney fees and (2) the other claims. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hecht v. Hecht
green
2 sentences1968While, as pointed out in Heller , the 1961 amendment would seem to destroy the then existing rule against modification of certain integrated agreements, it was recently concluded in Hecht v. Hecht, 259 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 293 ] (hearing in Supreme Court denied) that the provisions of the 1961 amendment are inapplicable to installment payments which have been made an integral part of a settlement agreement. 1968While, as pointed out in Heller , the 1961 amendment would seem to destroy the then existing rule against modification of certain integrated agreements, it was recently concluded in Hecht v. Hecht, 259 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 293 ] (hearing in Supreme Court denied) that the provisions of the 1961 amendment are inapplicable to installment payments which have been made an integral part of a settlement agreement. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.