Legal Opinion

People Ex Rel. Clancy v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1985No. L.A. 32041PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

We evaluate the propriety of a contingent fee arrangement between a city government and a private attorney whom it hired to bring abatement actions under the city’s nuisance ordinance. We hold the arrangement inappropriate under the circumstances, and in the interests of justice grant the extraordinary relief of disqualifying the attorney.

In 1981 Helen Ebel obtained a business license from petitioner City of Corona (City), and began operating a business known as the Book Store. The Book Store sells sexually explicit reading materials and provides an arcade section for viewing…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Ward v. Village of MonroevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Bellis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. People v. Bryant, Smith and WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
  4. People v. FierroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998

61 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