Legal Opinion
Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of Governments
California Supreme Court
Decided October 28, 1982No. S.F. 24326PublishedCited by 157 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*671Opinion
NEWMAN, J.
In a settlement agreement silent as to costs and attorney fees, plaintiffs promised to dismiss their action, with prejudice, on substantial performance of defendants’ promise to establish four transit systems. Our central question is whether that agreement operates as a merger and bar of all preexisting claims, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to award costs and statutory attorney fees. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, 1021.5)1
If the agreement is not a bar, we must decide whether, under section 1021.5, (1) fees may be awarded to legal services groups funded primarily by…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by157 opinions
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
- City of Sacramento v. DrewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Jesus Zuniga v. United Can Company and Driver-Salesmen, Produce Workers, and Helpers, Local 588, Retail Delivery DriversCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
152 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.