Legal Opinion

City of Oakland v. McCullough

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1996No. A070219PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KING, J.

I. Introduction

Vemolia McCullough appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees and costs in the amount of $100,005.48 incurred in a drug house abatement action by the City of Oakland. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11570 et seq.) We hold that the statutory authorization for an award “to the prevailing party” in such actions, of “costs, including the costs of investigation and discovery, and reasonable attorneys’ fees” (Civ. Code, § 3496), includes the salaries and overhead expenses of government attorneys and law enforcement personnel attributable to the investigation and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Serrano v. UnruhCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Evans v. UnkowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Nicholas Palmigiano v. J. Joseph Garrahy, Leonard Jefferson v. Bradford E. SouthworthCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
  5. Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour ActionsDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2016
  2. Balkind v. Telluride Mountain Title Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. People v. BhaktaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. City of Santa Rosa v. PatelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Tuxford v. Vitts Networks, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2002

4 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