Opinion No. 74-138 (1974) Ag

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[a]ttorney’s fees need not be 11 apportioned when incurred for representation on an issue common to both a cause of action in 12 which fees are proper and one in which they are not allowed”
• explaining that claims for 3 breach of the implied warranty of habitability and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment are both 4 breach of contract claims
• explaining that California courts interpret “on a contract” broadly, and § 1717 applies if the action “arises out of, is based upon, or relates to” a contract that contains an attorney’s fee provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).