49 Cited authorities

  1. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,723 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
  2. Evans v. Jeff D

    475 U.S. 717 (1986)   Cited 487 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding in § 1988(b) case that Congress gave prevailing party statutory eligibility for discretionary award of attorney's fees and statute did not bestow fee award on attorney
  3. Costco v. Superior Ct.

    47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 301 times   10 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"
  4. Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.

    144 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 266 times
    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
  5. Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP

    222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 177 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California trial court's failure to "specify the factors it had considered" when deciding whether to apply fee multiplier did "not compel a reversal"
  6. People v. Arias

    45 Cal.4th 169 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 163 times
    Recognizing “the proviso ‘including, but not limited to’ ‘connotes an illustrative listing, one purposefully capable of enlargement’ ”
  7. Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist.

    82 Cal.App.4th 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 195 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding block-billing impermissible only where it made it impossible to distinguish between tasks for which fees could be recovered and those for which fees could not be recovered
  8. Agster v. Maricopa County

    422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts do not apply state law privileges in federal cases unless the court creates a new privilege as a matter of federal common law
  9. Harman v. City and County of San Francisco

    158 Cal.App.4th 407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 146 times   2 Legal Analyses
    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
  10. Roberts v. City of Palmdale

    5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 193 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "under the Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications within the scope of the attorney-client relationship"
  11. Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1988   Cited 21,629 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)
  12. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. I § 3   Cited 294 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access
  13. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XXXV § 1   Cited 1 times

    There is hereby established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Cal. Const. art. XXXV § 1

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,103 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or