Legal Opinion
In Re Marriage of Biddle
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 29, 1997No. Docket Nos. A072326, A074330PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POCHÉ, Acting P. J.
Vivian Biddle appeals from that portion of the “Further Judgment on Reserved Issues” which decreed that she has no community property interest in a qui tam cause of action currently being prosecuted by her former husband.
With antecedents older than the republic, the qui tam action is a type of private attorney general lawsuit; it allows an individual to sue to enforce a public statutory right and to retain a portion of any moneys recovered thereby. (See generally, Comment, Qui Tam Actions: The Role of the Private Citizen in Law Enforcement (1973) 20 UCLA L.Rev. 778.)…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kreindler & Kreindler, Cross-Appellee v. United Technologies Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Kevin G. Kelly v. The Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- In Re Marriage of GillmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- James Alderson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.