Legal Opinion
Leiserson v. City of San Diego
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 30, 1988No. D006445PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WORK, Acting P. J.
Steven Leiserson appeals an order denying his motion for more than $40,000 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 1021.5 which provides for the award of attorney’s fees under a private attorney general theory. Leiserson contends the trial court erred in concluding he was not a successful litigant for the purposes of such an award because, although his tort action was financially unsuccessful, his lawsuit was the catalyst for the public benefit he perceives flowing from our appellate pronouncement delineating previously undefined rights of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Summers v. City of Cathedral CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Californians for Responsible Toxics Management v. KizerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Michael Shaw, and Fred L. Arthur v. City of Sacramento Sacramento Police Department Joseph Serna Arturo Venegas, Jr., ChiefCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Urbaniak v. NewtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Protect Our Water v. County of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.