SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

May 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 31      

« Private Attorney General: Although Project Proponent Ultimately Succeeding In Reversing A Project Mandamus Blocking Judgment Is Entitled To 1021.5 Fee Recovery, It Is Not Authorized Against A Litigant Who Did Not Impair Or Compromise Public Rights | Main | Lodestar/Private Attorney General: 1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test »

April 27, 2017

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.