Cassim v. Allstate Insurance
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
*814BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
The court’s holding has two parts. In the first part, the court, without deciding whether the closing argument under review constituted misconduct, holds that any error was harmless. I join this part of the court’s opinion, which is of importance to the parties to this litigation. In the second part, the court holds that plaintiffs are entitled to some unspecified percentage of their $3,594,600 compensatory damage award as “Brandt[1] fees, that is, the amount of attorney fees payable as damages.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 805.) According to the majority,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Brandt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Fuhrman v. California Satellite SystemsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.