Legal Opinion

Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 2004No. S112943PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORENO, J.

We granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer two related questions of law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29.8.) (1) May attorney fees, as provided for in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), be awarded where the plaintiff has been the “catalyst” in bringing about the relief sought by the litigation? (2) If the catalyst theory is viable under California law, will that theory support an award of attorney fees where the plaintiff “activates” the defendant to modify its behavior; or…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Westside Community for Independent Living, Inc. v. ObledoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Flannery v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Weeks v. Baker & McKenzieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Skaff v. Meridien North America Beverly Hills, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  2. Chavez v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Connerly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Vasquez v. CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Chin v. CHRYSLER LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008

44 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