Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2014, Volume 27, Number 3
Content
- A New Aggregate Litigation Model Emerges - Technology-Driven Mass Actions
- Confidence Before the Court: How to Find It
- Court Filings: Time to Sign Out of the Signature Requirement?
- Court Reporters Transcripts in a Digital World: Yesterday's Rules Don't Fit Today's Technology
- Editor's Foreword Show and Tell: Food Fight in the Courtroom
- Experiences of a New Lawyer
- From the Section Chair
- Have a Voice! Weighing In On Prospective California Judges Through the Jne Commission
- Letters to the Editor
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Masthead
- McDermott On Demand: the Rules of Procedure or the Rule of Law?
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Summary Contempt and Due Process: England, 1631, California, 1888
- Table of Contents
- To Demur or Not in Slapp Cases: Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot
- Recent Activity in Frivolous Appeals
Recent Activity in Frivolous Appeals
By Will Tomlinson
Frivolous Appeals: The Basics
When it appears to the reviewing court that [an] appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just." (Code Civ. Proc., § 907; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1) [authorizing court, "[o]n motion of a party or its own motion," to sanction party or attorney for "[t]aking a frivolous appeal or appealing solely to cause delay"].) California courts have been authorized to impose frivolous appeal sanctions in civil matters since 1851. (See Huschke v. Slater (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1160.)
[Page 11]