Legal Opinion

Hammond v. Agran

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 20, 2002No. G027509PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

I. Introduction

We now partially reverse the order of the trial court denying any fees at all under the private attorney general doctrine (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5) 1 to Larry Agran, the prevailing party in Hammond v. Agran (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1181 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 876] (Hammond I). In doing so we come to the following conclusions:(1) The trial court was correct in not awarding any fees based on Agran’s trial work in Hammond I. As one seeking elective office, Agran had a specific, concrete and significant interest in the trial litigation, which involved a challenge to his…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
  2. North Bay Regional Center v. MaldonadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. City of Santa Monica v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Blanchard v. DirecTV, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004

14 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