Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 24, 1984No. CA No. 83-6242PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
Michael R. Mitchell brought an action in district court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 seeking an attorney’s fee for the settlement of a former client’s case and under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 seeking several declaratory judgments. The district court had jurisdiction of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and dismissed Mitchell’s complaint as to the City of Los Angeles. We affirm. Mitchell raises interesting questions of interpretation which we cannot reach upon this record.
In the course of Mitchell’s settlement negotiations with the City of Los Angeles on behalf of his client in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Latino Project, Inc. v. City of Camden, Melvin Primas, and William HanowskyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Roscoe James, H. Diana Hicks, Intervenor-Appellant v. Home Construction Company of Mobile, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Richards v. ReedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Latino Project, Inc. v. City of CamdenDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1982
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pony v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Pony v. County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Mitchell v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985