Search for: "Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp." Results 1 - 18 of 18
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 11:51 pm
DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 557; Grimsley v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 11:00 pm
Thus, where the attorney fee award does not depend on the "catalyst" theory (Graham v. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 7:22 pm
    As discussed in the earlier 1021.5 post, the Cal Supremes adopted the catalyst theory in Graham v. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 11:43 am
DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 560 . . . .) [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 2:35 pm by The Complex Litigator
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine). [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:57 am by Steven G. Pearl
DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 582-583 (a case most notable for its holding on the "catalyst" attorney fees). [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 8:31 am
DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 570; City of Santa Monica v. [read post]