Legal Opinion
Fogelson v. Municipal Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 24, 1981No. Civ. 57838PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAUS, P. J.
Petitioner and appellant Fogelson seeks a determination that section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1 may, in a proper case, be used to pay the attorney’s fees incurred by a defendant in a criminal action. 2 The People, as the real party in interest, contend that petitioner chose the wrong remedy to test the correctness of his legal submission with which, in any event, they do not agree.
Facts
In 1974 petitioner was named as the defendant in two criminal complaints containing a total of three counts which were eventually consolidated for trial. He prevailed on two…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Zeitlin v. ArneberghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Bruce v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re HeadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Gray v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016