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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 97 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. Anchor | green | “because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, california courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes.” | 64 |
| 2 | Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District | green | “should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” | 15 |
| 3 | People v. Snow | green | “manifestations of friction between court and counsel, while not desirable, are virtually inevitable in a long trial.” | 7 |
| 4 | Sviridov v. City of San Diego | green | “a blanket application of williams to preclude section 998 costs unless the feha claim was objectively groundless would erode the public policy of encouraging settlement in such cases.” | 5 |
| 5 | Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro | green | “frivolous, unreasonable, or totally without foundation.” | 3 |
| 6 | Sviridov v. City of San Diego | green | “deemed the failure to support his statement with reasoned argument a forfeiture.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.