No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
NO OIL, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
*487 Opinion THE COURT.
After we filed our opinion in this case plaintiffs made a motion for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the appeal. For the reasons stated in our per curiam opinion in Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., ante, page 483 [119 Cal.Rptr. 215, 531 P.2d 783] and because it is desirable that the remittitur herein issue without further delay, we deny that motion without prejudice to its renewal before the trial court.
If plaintiffs present their motion to the trial court, accompanied by an appropriate showing of time and effort expended, the trial court is directed to determine that motion, and if it concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to a reasonable attorneys fee for services performed on appeal, to fix the amount thereof. (See American City Bank v. Zetlen (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 65, 67 [76 Cal.Rptr. 898].) The clerk is directed to incorporate the foregoing orders in the remittitur to be issued in No Oil, Inc.
v. City of Los Angeles (L.A. 30268)
ante, page 68 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66], and to include therewith a certified copy of this opinion.
These orders are final forthwith.
Mosk, J. did not participate therein.
Cites, in this corpus
- Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission L.A. 30307 · 1975-02-13
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles L.A. 30268 · 1974-12-10
- American City Bank v. Zetlen Civ. 33095 · 1969-04-18
Cited by
- No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles Civ. 67806 · 1984-03-29
- Mandel v. Lackner Civ. 42070 · 1979-05-04
- Serrano v. Priest L.A. 30398 · 1977-10-04
- Wildlife Alive v. Chickering S.F. 23417 · 1976-08-24