Legal Opinion

Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Commission

California Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1979No. Docket Nos. S.F. 23863, 23868PublishedCited by 160 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*897Opinion

MOSK, J.

The primary issue in these two consolidated proceedings is whether the Public Utilities Commission (commission) has authority to award attorney fees and costs to public interest participants in its proceedings.

Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies (CLAM) v. Public Utilities Commission (S.F. 23863) presents two questions: first, does the commission possess the power to award attorney fees and costs in quasi-judicial reparation proceedings; and second, may a nonattorney be awarded fees and costs when he serves in a representative capacity in such proceedings. Toward Utility Rate…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. People v. Western Air Lines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1954
  5. In Re TartarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by160 opinions

  1. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Gantt v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Avi Nakash, Joe Nakash, and Ralph Nakash v. Georges Marciano, Maurice Marciano, Armand Marciano, Paul MarcianoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  5. Kowis v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992

155 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API