Legal Opinion
Ketchum v. Moses
California Supreme Court
Decided February 26, 2001No. S077350PublishedCited by 621 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.
Defendant sought mandatory attorney fees after he moved to strike allegations in a so-called strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP action, under section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The superior court granted the motion and awarded attorney fees, including fee enhancements based on contingent risk and the exceptional quality of the legal services provided. We granted review to address the question whether the attorney fees were properly calculated in this matter. As will appear, based on our review of record, we conclude that they were not.
I
Plaintiff…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by621 opinions
- Grant Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of AzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State UniversityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Rukhsana Chaudhry v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
616 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.