Legal Opinion

Urbaniak v. Newton

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 12, 1993No. A055835PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DOSSEE, J.

This is an appeal from the award of attorney fees to respondent for a previous appeal in an action for damages caused by dissemination of the positive HIV status of respondent’s decedent. We find that respondent was not a “successful party” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and reverse.

Background

Decedent Gary Urbaniak was injured at work, and his employer’s insurance carrier, Allianz Insurance Company (Allianz), sent him to Dr. Frederic Newton, a neurologist, for evaluation. In his examination, Dr. Newton utilized metal electrodes with sharp points,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of GovernmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Sundance v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  5. Urbaniak v. NewtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Daily Gazette Co. v. West Virginia Development OfficeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Hong Liu v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Robinson v. City of ChowchillaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Friends of the Trails v. BlasiusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API