Legal Opinion
People v. Taylor
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 19, 2011No. C062413PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.
Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(H) authorizes restitution for “[a]ctual and reasonable attorney’s fees” incurred by the victim as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. This appeal addresses whether a court may order restitution for a contingency fee paid by the victim without first determining whether the fee was reasonable under the lodestar method for calculating attorney fees. In the published part of this opinion, we disagree with the decision of Division One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in People v. Millard (2009) 175…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Serrano v. UnruhCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- People v. BirkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. HolmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- The People v. GuillenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- People v. Grundfor, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- People v. NicholsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- In re Oscar F. CA3California Court of Appeal · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.