Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (2001)Annotate this Case
KATHLEEN ANNE EHRET et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CONGOLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.
[Modification fn. * of Opinion (87 Cal. App. 4th 202; 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 370).]
THE COURT.- fn.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 21, 2001, be modified in the following particulars:
1. On page 5, in the first paragraph [87 Cal. App. 4th 206, advance report, 2d par.] under "Discussion," the second sentence is modified to read:
Congoleum argues that section 685.020 provides that postjudgment interest is to run from the entry of judgment following remittur on the previous appeal.
2. On page 9 [87 Cal. App. 4th 208, advance report], footnote 2 is modified to read:
We note that there is a small technical variation in the language of section 685.020 and California Rules of Court, rule 875. The former calls for postjudgment interest from the entry of the judgment, while the latter calls for interest from the entry of the verdict. The language of rule 875 follows the language of former section 1033, which called for interest from the date the verdict was rendered. The difference in the two provisions is immaterial here, because the verdict was reached on June 26, 1997, and the judgment on the verdict was entered the following day, June 27, 1997.
3. There is no change in the judgment.
FN *. This modification requires movement of text affecting pages 206-208 of the bound volume report.
FN . Before Vogel (C.S.), P.J., Epstein, J., and Hastings, J.