Legal Opinion

Acosta v. SI CORP.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 6, 2005No. B176299PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, P. J.

Plaintiffs in a construction defect case appeal from a cost bill after a defense verdict. They argue the memorandum of costs should have been stricken because defendant SI Corporation (SI) did not apportion its costs among the plaintiffs although their claims were separate, rather than joint. We conclude SI was entitled to file a single costs memorandum and was not required to apportion costs among the plaintiffs. The trial court did not err in awarding costs to SI as prevailing party. Plaintiffs also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the cost award.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. People v. AlvarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Rose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Ladas v. California State Automobile Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  4. Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Smith v. Rae-Venter Law GroupCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of VacavilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Zurich American Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. In re Insurance Installment Fee CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. Adassa Walker v. Ticor Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 2012

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