Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El Segundo
California Supreme Court
1DissentTobriner, Acting C. J.
I dissent.
In construing section 27428 as requiring “private attorney general” plaintiffs to pay attorneys fees incurred by successful defendants, the majority ignore the cardinal principle of statutory interpretation, which mandates that statutes be construed to effectuate the legislative purpose underlying the enactment. Although the language of section 27428, read in isolation, is susceptible to the majority’s interpretation, it is equally susceptible to the interpretation that attorneys fees are to be awarded only to persons who have brought actions to enforce the act. The statute is not…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- State of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.