Legal Opinion

Connerly v. State Personnel Board

California Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 2006No. S125502PublishedCited by 117 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORENO, J.

This case involves litigation over private attorney general fees awarded pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 1 in an action “which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest . . . .” Here, plaintiff Ward Connerly successfully pursued litigation to invalidate several state statutes as unconstitutional under article I, section 31 of the California Constitution, enacted in 1996 as Proposition 209, which outlawed governmental preferential treatment by race, sex, and other categories. The state agencies that were the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.California Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. ZipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by117 opinions

  1. Haraguchi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. North Bay Regional Center v. MaldonadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Mountain Air Enters., LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Sierra Club v. County of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Collins v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

112 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