Legal Opinion
Dickens v. Ming Lee
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 26, 1991No. A050978PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KING, J.
In this case we hold that where a judicial arbitrator awarded a specific amount of attorney fees but unspecified costs, a judgment on the award was appealable as to the costs but not as to the attorney fees, which could be challenged only by request for trial de novo.
Linda K. Dickens and Stanley A. Davis sued their landlords, Ming and Melanie Lee, alleging 15 causes of action. The case went to mandatory judicial arbitration, which focused on two of the causes of action, breach of the warranty of habitability and wrongful eviction.
The arbitrator found a breach of the warranty of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Neff v. ErnstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Joyce v. BlackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
3Cited by8 opinions
- Espinoza v. MacHongaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Hightower v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- CC-California Plaza Associates v. Paller & GoldsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Wagy v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Lopes v. MillsapCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.