SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

May 2021

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          

« Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing CPRA Petitioner Properly Denied Fees Under Mandatory Fee-Shifting Statute And Under Code Civ. Proc. Section 128.5 Based On Her Self-Represented Status | Main | Private Attorney General: San Juan Capistrano Competing Hotel Developer Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Developer’s “Upside” Did Not Vindicate A Broader Public Interest And Developer Had A Large Personal Stake In The Litigation »

June 04, 2020

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.