Snyder

Snyder v. Marcus & Millichap

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 585·46 Cal. App. 4th 1099·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 268·96 Daily Journal DAR 7514·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4736
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 25, 1996A072294California1,834 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

We have seen this case before. Appellant Marcus & Millichap prevailed on a previous partial appeal concerning punitive damages and damages for “emotional distress.” However, Marcus & Millichap’s prior partial appeal did not challenge the entry of judgment against Marcus & Millichap for compensatory damages.

Marcus & Millichap contends the trial court should have awarded Marcus & Millichap its attorney fees for the prior appeal, under the fee provision of a relevant contract between the parties, because Marcus & Millichap was the prevailing party on the partial appeal even though judgment was entered against Marcus & Millichap for compensatory damages. We affirm the judgment because we conclude Marcus & Millichap was not the overall prevailing party in the litigation and suffered the entry of an adverse judgment, even though Marcus & Millichap prevailed on subsidiary damages issues on the prior partial appeal.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In our previous opinion in this case (Snyder v. Stephens (Feb. 27, 1995) A062373 [nonpub. opn.]) we ruled in favor of Marcus & Millichap on its two appellate contentions, concluding that the trial court wrongly awarded punitive…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.