Hartford Casualty Insurance v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C.
California Supreme Court
1Concurrence
LIU, J.,
Concurring. — “From the very nature of equity, a wide play is left to the conscience of the chancellor in formulating his decrees, that justice may be effectually carried out.” (Bechtel v. Wier (1907) 152 Cal. 443, 446 [93 P. 75].) Carrying out justice in this fee dispute is perhaps easier said than done, since no party appears blameless here. Today’s opinion foregrounds Squire Sanders (US) LLP’s behavior, casting the law firm as the undeserving recipient of millions of dollars in unreasonable legal fees and thus an appropriate target for Hartford’s unjust enrichment action. But there…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Bechtel v. WierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Assurance Co. of America v. HavenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Long v. Century Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.