Hensley v. Eckerhart

Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

Olson v. Cory

In Olson, we concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on wrongfully withheld judicial salary and pension increases.

Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.

Determining an award of attorney fees is a highly fact-specific task best left to discretion of the trial judge, familiar with the matter and with the expertise to determine the value of the legal services performed in the case

Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.

Noting that a court is not required to allocate attorney's fees between successful and unsuccessful efforts for work on issues or claims that are so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them

Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

Holding that, on remand, trial court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating attorney fees awarded in civil rights fee-shifting case for limited success under Hensley v. Eckerhart

Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank

Holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of prejudgment interest under California statute, because the jury's finding of comparative fault meant that "[t]he amount of damage could not be determined until after trial"

Earley v. Superior Court

Holding unilateral fee shifting provision in Labor Code trumps broader bilateral provision

Bowman v. City of Berkeley

Affirming trial court's exercise of discretion in reducing award

Boehm Associates v. Workers' Comp. App. Bd.

Stein v. Southern Cal. Edison Co.

In Stein, the court determined that a stipulation to allow the court to award prejudgment interest, without citing a specific statutory provision, did not allow the trial court to determine prejudgment interest under section 3288 without submitting the matter to the jury.