DIVIDED CALIF. SUP. CT. RETAINS, CLARIFIES ‘CATALYST THEORY’ Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

DIVIDED CALIF. SUP. CT. RETAINS, CLARIFIES ‘CATALYST THEORY’ Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, DIVIDED CALIF. SUP. CT. RETAINS, CLARIFIES ‘CATALYST THEORY’ Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

DIVIDED CALIF. SUP. CT. RETAINS, CLARIFIES ‘CATALYST THEORY’ Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

15 No. 12 ANPRODLLR 2Andrews Product Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 5 pages)

DIVIDED CALIF. SUP. CT. RETAINS, CLARIFIES ‘CATALYST THEORY’ Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

15 No. 12 ANPRODLLR 2Andrews Product Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 5 pages)

15 No. 12 Andrews Prod. Liab. Litig. Rep. 2
Andrews Product Liability Litigation Reporter
*1 January 13, 2005
Attorney Fees
Copyright © 2005 Thomson/West .

DIVIDED CALIF. SUP. CT. RETAINS, CLARIFIES ‘CATALYST THEORY’

Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the state's “catalyst theory,” under which attorney fees may be awarded in cases that do not come to a judicial resolution but produce a change in the defendant's conduct, can only be...
End of Document© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.