STEINFELD v. FOOTE-GOLDMAN PROCTOLOGIC MED GROUP

Docket No. B097270.

50 Cal.App.4th 1542 (1996)

PHYLLIS STEINFELD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FOOTE-GOLDMAN PROCTOLOGIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

November 21, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

COUNSEL

Schmid, Norek & Voiles, Douglas B. Voiles, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, Glenn Cornell and Shea Hutchins Lukacsko for Defendants and Appellants.

Charlotte E. Costan, Davis & Thomas and Joseph Daniel Davis for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

EPSTEIN, J.

This appeal challenges the award of prejudgment interest and expert fees to a successful plaintiff following an unapportioned statutory offer of compromise presented to two defendants. We conclude that where multiple defendants face joint and several liability for the entire judgment, the statutory offer to compromise need not be apportioned. We also find no basis to toll the accumulation of prejudgment interest...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases