California Supreme Court· 1/15/2009
Musaelian v. Adams
Citations
- 45 Cal. 4th 512
- 198 P.3d 560
- 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475
- 2009 Cal. LEXIS 115
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that California rule, “modeled almost word for word on rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” does not allow a pro se attorney litigant to recover sanctions in the form of an award of attorney’s fees
- “[T]he phrase ‘expenses incurred’ contemplates an obligation that a party has become liable to pay. [The rule] does not provide for compensation for time lost from other employment.”
- “[T]he phrase ‘expenses incurred’ contemplates an obligation that a party has become liable to pay. [The rule] does not provide for compensation for time lost from other employment.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Werdegar
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2012-11-20· cited 105×
- Alpert, Goldberg v. QuinnNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2009-11-24· cited 86×
- Peake v. UnderwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2014-06-25· cited 79×
- Bucur v. AhmadCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2016-01-26· cited 75×
- Optimal Markets, Inc. v. SalantCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2013-11-26· cited 44×
- Eden Township Healthcare District v. Eden Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2013-10-09· cited 40×
- Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2014-07-24· cited 38×
- Li v. Majestic Industrial Hills LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2009-09-08· cited 35×
- Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2015-01-27· cited 35×
- McNair v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2016-11-22· cited 32×
- Kerkeles v. City of San JoseCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2015-12-18· cited 24×
- Woodland Park Management, LLC v. City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2010-02-01· cited 20×
- Upson v. WallaceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2010-09-09· cited 17×
- 21st Century Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 2009-08-24· cited 17×
- Rickley v. GoodfriendCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-07-30· cited 15×
- Sands & Associates v. JuknavorianCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-10-10· cited 11×
- Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. S. Sarms, Inc.California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2018-01-31· cited 11×
- Avis Rent A Car Sys. v. McDavidNebraska Supreme Court· 2023-02-10· cited 11×
- People v. United States Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-11-08· cited 10×
- Roos v. Honeywell International, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2015-11-10· cited 8×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-02-26· cited 949×
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court· 2000-06-02· cited 669×
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court· 1995-10-02· cited 378×
- Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc.California Supreme Court· 1984-01-30· cited 176×
- Andrew Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, Inc. And Software Security, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2002-04-29· cited 95×
- Jack Massengale v. Michael RayEleventh Circuit· 2001-10-04· cited 83×
- City of Santa Monica v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court· 2008-05-19· cited 78×
- Lolley v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court· 2002-09-25· cited 78×
- Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v. AronoffS.D. New York· 1986-06-18· cited 60×
- Laborde v. AronsonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-09-21· cited 31×
- Goodstone v. Southwest Airlines Co.California Court of Appeal· 1998-04-21· cited 14×
- DiPaolo v. MoranE.D. Pennsylvania· 2003-06-27· cited 13×
- Abandonato v. ColdrenCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1995-12-20· cited 12×
Other cases named Musaelian v. Adams
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.