21 Cal. App. 4th 873 - Siligo v. Castellucci’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2015
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 22 Cal. 3d 718 - Stout v. Turney · 3 Cal. App. 4th 1338 - Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. · Wagner v. Benson · 13 Cal. App. 4th 155 - Lerner v. Ward · 135 Cal. App. 3d 451 - IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Second, California law is settled that an obligation to pay attorney fees incurred in the enforcement of a contract ‘includes attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against a challenge to the underlying validity of the obligation.’ (Finalco[, supra,] 235 Cal.App.3d 1301, 1308 .) “In Wagner v. Benson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 516 ], the plaintiffs sued a bank for fraud and negligence in connection with a loan transaction, and the bank filed a cross-complaint to collect the balance due under the promissory notes signed in the transaction. The bank prevailed on the complaint and cross-complaint, but the trial court limited the bank’s award of attorney fees to the fees incurred in suing on the promissory notes. The Court of Appeal reversed. It reasoned: ‘Here the parties have agreed to compensate the prevailing party for reasonable costs incurred in collecting the balance due on the notes. However, the Bank’s collection efforts were interrelated with its defense against the [plaintiffs’] fraud allegations. Defense of the charge of fraud was necessary in the Bank’s efforts to collect the notes [citations].’ (Id. at p. 37.)” ( Siligo, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th 873 at p. 878 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`To answer this question, we apply the ordinary rules of contract interpretation. "Under statutory rules of contract interpretation, the mutual intention of the parties at the time the contract is formed governs interpretation. . . . Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract. . . . The `clear and explicit' meaning of these provisions, interpreted in their `ordinary and popular sense,' unless `used by the parties in a technical sense or a special meaning is given to them by usage' . . ., controls judicial interpretation. . . . Thus, if the meaning a layperson would ascribe to contract language is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(a) In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. [¶]... HQ “Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.