Legal Opinion
Elms v. Builders Disbursements, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 19, 1991No. D012470PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WORK, J.
—The issue in this case is whether a defendant who is sued on a contract entitling a successful litigant to attorney’s fees under Civil Code 1 section 1717 may recover such fees where the plaintiff’s action is dismissed because it was not brought to trial within five years. Because we answer this question in the affirmative, we reverse the post-judgment order denying the motion of defendant, Builders Disbursements, Inc. (Builders), for attorney’s fees and costs from plaintiffs, Lonnie and Sharon Elms (the Elms).
Background
In October 1983, the Elms, Geodesic Dome Specialists…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Morcos v. Board of RetirementCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Bank of Idaho v. Pine Avenue AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Nasser v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Kytasty v. GodwinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Winick Corp. v. Safeco Insursnce Co. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- M & R PROPERTIES v. ThomsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- PNEC Corp. v. MeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. GriffithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- CK DFW PARTNERS LTD. v. City Kitchens, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.