Vick v. DaCORSI
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JOHNSON, Acting P. J.
The Vicks purchased a single-family residence in Burbank from the DaCorsis. When the Vicks discovered the property contained nonpermitted and illegal improvements and alterations which Burbank required them to remedy they sued the DaCorsis for breach of contract and fraud. A nonsuit and jury verdict resulted in a judgment for the DaCorsis on all counts. The DaCorsis then sought to recover their expert witness fees on the ground the Vicks had rejected the DaCorsis’ offer of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (998 offer). The trial court denied the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Randles v. LowryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Taing v. Johnson Scaffolding Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Meissner v. PaulsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Hutchins v. WatersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Parker v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- MENEES v. AndrewsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Lennar Homes of California, Inc. v. StephensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Potter v. Alliance United Ins. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.