Legal Opinion
Andreini & Co. v. MacCorkle Insurance Service, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 25, 2013No. A133473PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHMAN, J.
For the second time in recent years we are called upon to construe the scope of rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court (rule 8.278), which governs recovery of costs allowed following a successful appeal. Last year the Supreme Court affirmed a decision by this court, and held that “rule 8.278(d)(1)(F) does not authorize an award of costs for interest expenses and fees incurred to borrow funds to deposit as security for a letter of credit that was procured to secure an appeal bond ....” (Rossa v. D.L. Falk Construction, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 387, 399 [135 Cal.Rptr.3d…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Reid v. Google, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2010
- Hale v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- USS-POSCO Industries v. Floyd CaseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. County of NapaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- People v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Siry Investments v. FarkhondehpourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015