Legal Opinion
McDowell v. Watson
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 9, 1997No. E018130PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McKINSTER, Acting P. J.
Challenging various approvals given by the County of Riverside to a development on land owned by William Watson, Eion and Clara McDowell unsuccessfully petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate and injunction. After the trial court denied the McDowells’ petition, Watson moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.1 and for sanctions pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.8. The trial court denied both motions. Watson appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Issues on Appeal
Regarding the denial of the motion…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Crowley v. KatlemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Morehart v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Slater v. BlackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Flannery v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Wallace v. McCubbinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Lewis v. County of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.