Animal Protection and Rescue League v. City of San Diego
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AARON, J.—
I
INTRODUCTION
The primary issue we must decide in this appeal is whether a municipality may be considered an “opposing part[y]” for purposes of the private attorney general fee statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5) 1 when it confesses error in response to a petition for writ of mandate challenging the municipality’s action. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that a municipality may be considered an opposing party under such circumstances and that the trial court did not err in concluding that the municipality in this case was an opposing party and awarding…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Connerly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Planned Parenthood v. AakhusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023