Legal Opinion
Bruckman v. Parliament Escrow Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 31, 1987No. Docket Nos. B016901, B020353PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STONE, P. J.
Parliament Escrow Corporation (Parliament) appeals from a judgment in favor of Ronald Bruckman (Bruckman) for $8,297.01, plus interest of $3,216.21, costs of $531.13, and attorney’s fees of $16,022.25. Parliament contends that: (1) Bruckman’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the trial court could not award attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 for an action based on negligence; (3) the amount of attorney’s fees awarded was uncertain and unreasonable; (4) Bruckman was not entitled to indemnity from Parliament; and (5) the trial court’s…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Brandt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp.California Supreme Court · 1963
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.California Supreme Court · 2014
- US Ecology, Inc. v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Beasley v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.