49 Cited authorities

Ketchum v. Moses
24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,734 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof
Evans v. Jeff D
475 U.S. 717 (1986) Cited 489 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
Costco v. Superior Ct.
47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009) Cited 304 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"
Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.
144 Cal.App.4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 270 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
Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP
222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 179 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"
People v. Arias
45 Cal.4th 169 (Cal. 2008) Cited 167 times
Recognizing “the proviso ‘including, but not limited to’ ‘connotes an illustrative listing, one purposefully capable of enlargement’ ”
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
Agster v. Maricopa County
422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 158 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
Harman v. City and County of San Francisco
158 Cal.App.4th 407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 148 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
Roberts v. City of Palmdale
5 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 1993) Cited 194 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"
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,783 times 43 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)
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. I § 3 Cited 296 times 2 Legal Analyses
Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access
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
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,160 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

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. S.C. (ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA)

49 Cited authorities

Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

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

Holding that the privilege "does not extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney"

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

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"

Recognizing “the proviso ‘including, but not limited to’ ‘connotes an illustrative listing, one purposefully capable of enlargement’ ”

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

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

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

Explaining that "under the Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications within the scope of the attorney-client relationship"

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)

Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access