No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

531 P.2d 784, 13 Cal. 3d 486, 119 Cal. Rptr. 216, 1975 Cal. LEXIS 185

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1975

DocketL.A. 30268

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 531 P.2d 784 (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 531 P.2d 784, 13 Cal. 3d 486, 119 Cal. Rptr. 216, 1975 Cal. LEXIS 185 (Cal. 1975).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 P.2d 784, 13 Cal. 3d 486, 119 Cal. Rptr. 216, 1975 Cal. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/no-oil-inc-v-city-of-los-angeles-cal-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack