Legal Opinion
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
California Supreme Court
Decided January 12, 2005No. S112862PublishedCited by 204 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORENO, J.
In this case defendant offered to repurchase a truck that had been marketed with false statements about its towing capacity. This offer came after a lawsuit plaintiffs filed against defendant seeking this repurchase remedy, but before any kind of court judgment was rendered. Plaintiffs were awarded substantial attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.1 Defendant raises several issues regarding those fees. The first is whether we should reconsider the catalyst theory, recognized by this court in Westside Community for Independent Living, Inc. v. Obledo (1983)…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by204 opinions
- Molski v. Foster Freeze Paso RoblesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Evans v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- North Bay Regional Center v. MaldonadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Skaff v. Meridien North America Beverly Hills, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
199 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.