75 Cited authorities

  1. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,047 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 748 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles
  3. Maria P. v. Riles

    43 Cal.3d 1281 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 740 times
    Determining plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties under § 1021.5 on the basis of their preliminary injunction against defendants
  4. Computerxpress v. Jackson

    93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 404 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff "failed to establish probability of success under California's anti-SLAPP statute on abuse of process claim because plaintiff alleged misuse of administrative process of Federal Communications Commission rather than abuse of judicial process"
  5. McCown v. City of Fontana

    565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 278 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court could not consider the parties' settlement negotiations in determining a reasonable fee
  6. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 687 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself
  7. Costco v. Superior Ct.

    47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 223 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege "does not extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney"
  8. People v. Gionis

    9 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 315 times
    Holding defendant's incriminating remarks to counsel, from whom he sought but did not receive advice, not protected by attorney-client privilege; noting attorney's "unequivocal refusal to represent defendant . . . detracts significantly from defendant's claim of privilege"
  9. DiBella v. Hopkins

    403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 157 times
    Ruling former television executive who ran promotions and television packaging business was public figure for purposes of libel claim, given his achievements in boxing industry and his success in garnering public's attention by organizing and promoting boxing bouts seen by cable subscribers
  10. Serrano v. Unruh

    32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 291 times
    Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."
  11. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16   Cited 3,081 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Denying corporation's anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint; although commercial speech can qualify for First Amendment protection and, thus, potentially for anti-SLAPP protection, plaintiffs claims arose from unprotected conduct
  12. Section 952 - "Confidential communication between client and lawyer"

    Cal. Evid. Code § 952   Cited 249 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Defining "confidential communication between client and lawyer" as "information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted"
  13. Section 6149 - Written fee contract deemed confidential communication

    Cal. Bus. and Prof'l. Code § 6149   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A written fee contract shall be deemed to be a confidential communication within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6068 and of Section 952 of the Evidence Code. Ca. Bus. and Prof'l. Code § 6149

  14. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 217 times

    (a) Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the