SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« FEHA Prevailing Defendant Does Not Garner Attorney’s Fees Award Unless Plaintiff Action Found To Be Frivolous In Nature | Main | Attorneys Successfully Sue Former Client For Collection Of Full Receivable Plus Attorney’s Fees In Collecting The Receivable »

August 02, 2008

Comments

Greg May

Thanks so much for responding to my query. I suspect that a court facing a flat fee arrangement will treat it as you have described the treatment of contingent fees.

Mike & Marc

Gideon Kanner raises a very nice question. Prof. Kanner is preeminent in the field of eminent domain and inverse condemnation. Therefore, Mike and Marc invite Prof. Kanner to comment further about the question that he has asked and enlighten us -- why do courts display such a concern for the "public fisc" in inverse condemnation cases when fee awards are at issue? And we invite our readers to chime in.

Gideon Kanner

I find it fascinating that when it comes to inverse condemnation the courts abruptly display a concern for the "public fisc." Isn't that fisc just as public in other cases brought against public bodies? So why the different approaches?

The comments to this entry are closed.