green
Positive treatment
11.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Manriquez v. J. Vangilder
(2×)
Weighing “the significance of the benefit, as well as the size of the class receiving benefit, from a realistic assessment, in light of all the pertinent circumstances, of the gains which have resulted in a particular case,” Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. City Council, 593 P.2d 200, 212 (Cal. 1979), the district court held that the case confers a significant benefit to the general public because “Plaintiffs’ verdicts have larger 2 implications beyond Plaintiffs’ individual cases.” To be sure, the primary effect of Manriquez’s $2,500 judgment is arguably an enforcement …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Jennifer Kent
Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. City Council, 593 P.2d 200, 208 (Cal. 1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Inquiry Concerning Freedman
(See Mardikian, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 478-479 [hardworking and overworked judge had numerous significant and unjustified delays and submitted salary affidavits during periods of delay up to a year, despite repeated communications with this commission about delayed matters; censured for prejudicial misconduct]; In re Jensen (1978) 24 Cal.3d 72, 73 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ] [judge who unjustifiably delayed rulings and “nevertheless” submitted salary affidavits that inaccurately said he did not was censured]; In re Creede, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 1099 [judge censured for delays ov…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Chin v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The fee-shifting provision codified the common law “private attorney general” doctrine of attorney fees developed in prior judicial decisions, which sought “to encourage suits enforcing important public policies by providing substantial attorney fees to successful litigants in such cases.” Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 872 , 743 P.2d 932, 935 (1987) (citing Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n v. City Council of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.3d 917 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200, 208 (1979)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dodds v. Commission on Judicial Performance
(2×)
(Cf. Fitch, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 556-557 [judge told a court reporter, “Your butt looks good in that dress”; judge said to a court reporter, “I certainly hope you’re not that frigid at home with your husband”; judge slapped or patted a court reporter and a court trainee on their buttocks]; In re Rasmussen (1987) 43 Cal.3d 536, 538 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 734 P.2d 988 ] [judge initiated probation revocation proceedings for personal reasons]; In re McCullough (1987) 43 Cal.3d 534, 535 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 151 , 734 P.2d 987 ] [delay in deciding case; erroneous salary affidavits]; In re Cre…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,021 in Re Eastport Associates, Debtor (Two Cases). Eastport Associates v. City of Los Angeles, Eastport Associates v. City of Los Angeles
Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 931-32 , 593 P.2d 200, 206-07 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 509-10 (1979) The Bradley rule has no application in this case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eastport Associates v. City of Los Angeles (In re Eastport Associates)
Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 931-32 , 593 P.2d 200, 206-07 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 509-10 (1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keith v. Volpe
Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 1021.5 permits an award of attorneys’ fees to a successful party “in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.” See Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council of L…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mardikian v. Commission on Judicial Performance
(2×)
Our reservations stem from the obvious proposition that while a judge can be expected to be diligent, hardworking, and even self-sacrificing when necessary, he cannot be expected upon pain of official discipline to accomplish tasks which are beyond his capacity and resources. (4a) When, with "proper application," a judge would be able to decide matters pending before him within 90 days of their submission for decision, but does not do so, the failure to perform is a basis for censure or removal under section 18(c), as a persistent failure to perform judicial duties even if the failure is not a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Anderson
It relies primarily upon the California Supreme Court decision in Woodland Hills Residents Ass'n, Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 945 , 593 P.2d 200, 216 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 519 (1979), which states that a plaintiff may recover attorney's fees under the substantial benefit doctrine if the nonpecuniary benefit conferred is "concrete and clearly substantial." Disney argues that the benefit fails to meet this test. 16 Woodland Hills does not preclude a fee award here.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Anderson
It relies primarily upon the California Supreme Court decision in Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 945 , 593 P.2d 200, 216 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 519 (1979), which states that a plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees under the substantial benefit doctrine if the non-pecuniary benefit conferred is “concrete and clearly substantial.” Disney argues that the benefit fails to meet this test.
examined
Cited "see"
Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
(4×)
Section 1021.5 authorizes an award of fees when (1) the action “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,” (2) “a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons . . . ,” and (3) “the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement... are such as to make the award appropriate . . . .” (§ 1021.5; see Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 935 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ] (Woodland Hills).) In Joshua S., we carved o…
examined
Cited "see"
Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
(See Wilkerson v. City of Placentia (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 435, 445 , 173 Cal.Rptr. 294 ["where the entire basis for the decision is what we have done in this opinion, we should make the decision that it qualifies as a case for granting of fees"]; accord, Laurel Heights, at p. 427, 253 Cal.Rptr. 426 , 764 P.2d 278 .) An award of attorney fees is proper under section 1021.5 if (1) petitioners' action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, (2) a significant benefit was conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and (3) the burden of priv…
discussed
Cited "see"
State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John
(2×)
See Woodland Hills Residents Assoc., Inc. v. City Council of *661 LA., 23 Cal.3d 917 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200, 206 (1979). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Fischer v. Brombolich
(2×)
See Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council (1979), 593 P.2d 200 , 154 Cal. Rptr. 503 ; Taggart v. Highway Board (1988), 115 Idaho 816 , 771 P.2d 37 ; Anchorage Daily News v. Anchorage School District (Alaska 1990), 803 P.2d 402 (recognizing a “public interest litigant”).
examined
Cited "see"
Keith v. Volpe
(4×)
See Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 933-34 , 593 P.2d 200, 208 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 511-12 (1979); Sundance v. Municipal Court, 192 Cal.App.3d 268 , 237 Cal.Rptr. 269, 271 (1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Ralph W. Keith v. John A. Volpe, as Secretary of Transportation, Earl Wright, on Supplemental Complaint, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Intervenors/appellees on Supplemental Complaint v. City of Hawthorne, on Supplemental Complaint
(4×)
See Woodland Hills Residents Association, Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 933-34 , 593 P.2d 200, 208 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 511-12 (1979); Sundance v. Municipal Court, 192 Cal.App.3d 268 , 237 Cal.Rptr. 269, 271 (1987). 104 Here, by successfully litigating his state law claims, Keith enforced his right to be free from discrimination based on race and income.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re the Complaint Against Judge Grady
See, sec. 20.66, 1949 Stats., sec. 20.260, 1955 Stats., sec. 256.54(8), 1961 Stats. [13] In the Matter of Carstensen, 316 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1982), In re Weeks, 658 P.2d 174 (Ariz. 1983), and In re Jensen, 593 P.2d 200 (Cal. 1978). [1] The rule, like sec. 757.025, requires a judge to file an affidavit and keeps the same 90 and 180 day periods.
discussed
Cited "see"
DIV. OF WORKERS'COMP, ETC. v. Brevda
(2×)
App.3d 248 , 46 Ill.Dec. 715 , 414 N.E.2d 768, 772 (1980) (fee statute applied retroactively against insurer which had refused to pay a claim without reasonable cause, on the ground that there is no vested right in any remedy or procedural right); Bradfute v. Renton School District, No. 403, 19 Wash. App. 638 , 577 P.2d 157 (1978) (fee statute imposed retroactively upon school board's bad faith non-renewal of employee's contract was properly applied as the statute affected no contractual or vested right but dealt with practice, procedure or remedies); Buckalew v. City of Grangeville, 100 Idaho…
discussed
Cited "see"
Whitman v. Board of Supervisors
(2×)
Any motion directly or impliedly rejecting such proposed findings must include a statement of alternative or modified findings or a direction that the matter under consideration be continued for a reasonable amount of time in order for staff to prepare a new set of proposed findings consistent with the evidence which has been presented and the decision which is anticipated.” This procedure was not followed here. 13 Government Code section 800 reads in pertinent part: “In any civil action to appeal or review the award, finding, or other determination of any administrative proceeding under t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc.
(2×)
(See Beach Colony II v. California Coastal Com. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 106, 110 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 485 ]; see also Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 940-941 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ] [private attorney general statute]; Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 545 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 ] [partition action].) We reverse only when no substantial evidence supports the court’s findings.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Culbertson v. Board of County Commissioners
(4×)
Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 109 (5th ed.1941)); see also Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. City Council of L.A., 23 Cal.3d 917 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200, 211 (1979) (stating that awarding court “must realistically assess the litigation and determine, from a practical perspective, whether or not the action served to vindicate an important right so as to justify an attorney fee award under a private attorney general theory”).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
(4×)
DISCUSSION A. Whether the Catalyst Theory Should Be Abolished An important exception to the American rule that litigants are to bear their own attorney fees is found in section 1021.5. [2] As we have stated: "The Legislature adopted section 1021.5 as a codification of the private attorney general doctrine of attorney fees developed in prior judicial decisions. [Citation.] Under this section, the court may award attorney fees to a `successful party' in any action that `has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Satrap v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(2×)
Proc., § 1021.5; see also Woodland Hills *77 Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ].) The purpose of an award of attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5, is to encourage suits that enforce “common interests of significant societal importance, but which do not involve any individual’s financial interest to the extent necessary to encourage private litigation to enforce the right. [Citation.] To encourage such suits, attorneys fees are awarded when a significant public benefit is conferred through litigation pursued by one whose pers…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. Worldwide Church of God, Inc.
(2×)
In such circumstance, the court, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, thereupon may decree that under dictates of justice those receiving the benefit should contribute to the costs of its production.” (Serrano v. Priest, (Serrano III) supra, 20 Cal.3d 25, at p. 38 ; see also Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 943 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ]; Fletcher v. A. J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilkerson v. City of Placentia
(2×)
See also Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ].) Nor do we agree with defendant’s first conclusion that the proper procedure is for the trial court to consider this matter on remand.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Arden T. Jensen, a Judge of the Superior Court, on Censure.
L.A. 31020.
California Supreme Court.
Nov 24, 1978.
Cited by 11 opinions | Published
[*73] Opinion
THE COURT.—The Commission on Judicial Performance, following a factual stipulation in lieu of hearing, receipt of documentaiy evidence in mitigation, and oral argument, found that despite an informal admonition by the commission, between 1971 and 1977 Judge Arden T. Jensen repeatedly failed to decide within 90 days cases that had been submitted to him for decision, and that he nevertheless regularly executed affidavits declaring that no cause remained pending and undetermined before him for 90 days after such submission, thus entitling him to his salary. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 19; Gov. Code, § 68210.)
The commission found that Judge Jensen’s failure to decide his cases on time was not caused by an intentional disregard of his duties, but that with proper application he could have decided each of the matters within 90 days of submission. The commission therefore concluded that Judge Jensen’s conduct constituted persistent failure to perform his duties (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (c)), and recommended that he be publicly censured.
After reviewing the record we are satisfied that the conclusion of the commission is justified and that its recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated Judge Jensen is hereby censured.