Monday, March 27, 2017

4/3 provides the goods

A nice entry for the first-line contest:

"This case is confirmation of our fathers’ repeated adjurations to “get the oil changed.”"

But we know that what really revs your engine is a juicy published opinion on the important question of appellate bonding! So for that, you 'll need to click here for a super(sedeas) case! The upshot is that a judgment debtor can pay the damages portion of a judgment, leaving the fees and costs award unpaid--and not have to bond those! Footnote 8 suggests that the Legislature consider amending CCP 917.1(a) to require the bonding of attorney fees, or perhaps just require a bond for any award of costs in excess of a fixed amount (e.g., $50,000 or more)...

And from 2/7, we can learn whether there can be SLAPPing in boxing here...