Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)

Citation
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Parent Document
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2001-07-19

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

537 chars
In Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 452, 950 P.2d 567], in connection with a contractual provision for shifting costs of *931litigation, the Supreme Court noted the conflict between Bussey and Ripley and then stated: “Our present analysis, which involves statutory construction, may not be dispositive in a matter involving the effect of a contractual agreement for shifting litigation costs, which turns on the intentions of the contracting parties.” (Davis v. KGO-T.V., Inc., supra, at pp. 446-447, fn. 5.)