What considerations must be considered before awarding an award of attorney fees in a personal injury case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marshall v. Department of Water & Power, 219 Cal.App.3d 1124, 268 Cal.Rptr. 559 (Cal. App. 1990):
These considerations are markedly different from those underlying an award of attorney fees. As stated in Holtz v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, supra, 17 Cal.3d at page 658, 131 Cal.Rptr. 646, 552 P.2d 430, the allowance of witness fees and attorney fees is not required by the just compensation clause of the California constitution and is merely permitted by statute. The constitutional mandate to make whole a property owner does not translate into a basis for enriching an attorney's fee award.
We are aware of Parker v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 556, 118 Cal.Rptr. 687, where this court affirmed an attorney fee award which [219 Cal.App.3d 1150] was based upon a contingency fee agreement and included prejudgment interest in the calculation.
Page 575
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
