Legal Opinion

Lady v. Palen

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 18, 1936No. Civ. No. 10673PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McCOMB, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff appeals from an order striking out his cost bill after he obtained judgment in a libel action for the sum of $1 nominal damages and $200 punitive and exemplary damages.

This is the question presented for determination:

Is the plaintiff in a libel action, who recovers a judgment for less than $2,000, entitled to have taxed as items of cost:(1) The sum of $100 to cover counsel fees under section 7 of Act 4317 of the state legislature, volume II, Deering's General Laws, 1931, page 2161, and(2) Other expenses incurred.

The first item is not properly taxable according to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Logan v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  2. Newcomb v. Title Guarante & Trust CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Jacobi v. BaurCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Rapfogel v. KlassenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Truelsen v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Puccetti v. GirolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Bardeen v. Commander Oil Co., Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Leaper v. GandyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Rogers v. County Bank of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

1 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