The California Supreme Court granted review in two more previously covered cases, on the issues as described in the court's pending issues summary:
Barry v. State Bar (Rev. Granted Nov. 26, 2013): This case presents the following issue: If the trial court grants a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 on the ground that the plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on the merits because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, does the court have the authority to award the prevailing party the attorney fees mandated by section 425.16, subdivision (c)?
Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (Rev. Granted Dec. 11, 2013): This case includes the following issue: Is an award of attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813 properly included as compensatory damages for purposes of calculating the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages where the fees are awarded by the jury, but excluded from compensatory damages when they are awarded by the trial court after the jury has rendered its verdict?
Showing posts with label petitions for review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label petitions for review. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Review Granted . . .
In the past month or so, the California Supreme Court has granted review in two previously covered cases (on the issues as described in the Court's pending issues summary):
City of Perris v. Stamper (Rev. Granted Nov. 13, 2013): This case presents the following issues: (1) In this eminent domain case, was the constitutionality of the dedication requirement—that the city claimed it would have required in order to grant the property owner permission to put the property to a higher use—a question that had to be resolved by the jury pursuant to article I, section 19, of the California Constitution? (2) Was the dedication requirement a “project effect” that the eminent domain law required to be ignored in determining just compensation?
Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (Rev. Granted, Oct. 16, 2013): This case presents the following issue: Is a prevailing defendant in an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) required to show that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs?
City of Perris v. Stamper (Rev. Granted Nov. 13, 2013): This case presents the following issues: (1) In this eminent domain case, was the constitutionality of the dedication requirement—that the city claimed it would have required in order to grant the property owner permission to put the property to a higher use—a question that had to be resolved by the jury pursuant to article I, section 19, of the California Constitution? (2) Was the dedication requirement a “project effect” that the eminent domain law required to be ignored in determining just compensation?
Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (Rev. Granted, Oct. 16, 2013): This case presents the following issue: Is a prevailing defendant in an action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) required to show that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless in order to recover ordinary litigation costs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)