Legal Opinion
Kavanaugh v. City of Sunnyvale
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 26, 1991No. H007335PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ELIA, J.
Xerox Corporation appeals the trial court’s order granting attorney’s fees to respondents Thomas E. and Mary Beth Kavanaugh. We conclude that Xerox was not a passive beneficiary of the litigation and therefore the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Labor Code section 3856 1 was improper. The judgment is reversed.
Facts and Procedural Background
On May 23, 1984, Thomas Kavanaugh was involved in an automobile accident in which he sustained injuries. At the time of the accident, Kavanaugh was acting in the course and scope of his employment for Xerox Corporation.
On December 24,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Quinn v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Davis v. Air Technical Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Covenant Mutual Insurance v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Estate of KortheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Phelps v. StostadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Peart v. District of Columbia Housing AuthorityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- Summers v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Gapusan v. JayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Kindt v. Otis Elevator Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.