Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Molski v. Arciero Wine Groupgreen1 sentence2011The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.” (See Molski, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 790 [“the plain language of section 55 allows bilateral fee recovery”].) One notable difference between sections 54.3 and 55 relates to the standing required to support actions under the respective provisions: “[a]n equitable action under section 55 carries no standing requirement other than that the plaintiff be a ‘person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved’ by the challenged violation,” while section 54.3 “imposes the standing requirement that the plain | 1 | 1 |
Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.green2 sentences2011The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.” (See Molski, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 790 [“the plain language of section 55 allows bilateral fee recovery”].) One notable difference between sections 54.3 and 55 relates to the standing required to support actions under the respective provisions: “[a]n equitable action under section 55 carries no standing requirement other than that the plaintiff be a ‘person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved’ by the challenged violation,” while section 54.3 “imposes the standing requirement that the plain 2011The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.” (See Molski, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 790 [“the plain language of section 55 allows bilateral fee recovery”].) One notable difference between sections 54.3 and 55 relates to the standing required to support actions under the respective provisions: “[a]n equitable action under section 55 carries no standing requirement other than that the plaintiff be a ‘person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved’ by the challenged violation,” while section 54.3 “imposes the standing requirement that the plain | 1 | 1 |
Max Factor & Co. v. Kunsmangreen2 sentences1997In further aid of the UPA’s effective enforcement, moreover, its enactors provided that an action to enjoin a violation or recover damages may be brought by “[a]ny person or trade association.” (§ 17070.) Thus the law “denounces unfair competition and so-called piratical trade transactions, and was designed to afford full relief against such abuses on behalf of anyone aggrieved.” (Max Factor & Co. v. Kunsman, supra, 5 Cal.2d at p. 478 (dis. opn. of Shenk, J.), italics added; see also Grether, Experience in California with Fair Trade Legislation Restricting Price Cutting (1936) 24 Cal.L.Rev. 64 1997In further aid of the UPA's effective enforcement, moreover, its enactors provided that an action to enjoin a violation or recover damages may be brought by "[a]ny person or trade association." (§ 17070.) Thus the law "denounces unfair competition and so-called piratical trade transactions, and was designed to afford full relief against such abuses on behalf of anyone aggrieved ." ( Max Factor Co . v. Kunsman, supra, 5 Cal. 2d at p. 478 (dis. opn. of Shenk, J.), italics added; see also Grether, Experience in California with Fair Trade Legislation Restricting Price Cutting (1936) 24 Cal.L.Rev. | 1 | 1 |
Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Districtgreen2 sentences1990(Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 964-965 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 ].) A change in circumstances, rendering injunctive relief moot or unnecessary, justifies the denial of an injunction. 1990(Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 964-965 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 ].) A change in circumstances, rendering injunctive relief moot or unnecessary, justifies the denial of an injunction. | 1 | 1 |
Dr. Miles California Co. v. Sontag Chain Stores Co.green2 sentences1954Co. v. Sontag Stores Co., 8 Cal.2d 178, 179 [ 64 P.2d 726 ].) It is not disputed, and the trial court found as a fact, that the individual cross-complainants were all licensed physicians. [2] There are more than 10 of them and they are entitled under section 2436 of the Business and Professions Code to bring an action to enjoin a violation of chapter 5 of that code. [3] Section 2436 does not confer a right of action upon the San Diego County Medical Society for that section applies only to "the board [of medical or osteopathic examiners] or ... 10 or more persons holding physician's and surgeo 1954Co. v. Sontag Stores Co., 8 Cal.2d 178, 179 [ 64 P.2d 726 ].) It is not disputed, and the trial court found as a fact, that the individual cross-complainants were all licensed physicians. [2] There are more than 10 of them and they are entitled under section 2436 of the Business and Professions Code to bring an action to enjoin a violation of chapter 5 of that code. [3] Section 2436 does not confer a right of action upon the San Diego County Medical Society for that section applies only to "the board [of medical or osteopathic examiners] or ... 10 or more persons holding physician's and surgeo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mundy v. Neal
green
2 sentences2020The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.” 17 186 Cal.App.4th 256, 259 .) Cases decided under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 are helpful in guiding our analysis. 2020The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.” 17 186 Cal.App.4th 256, 259 .) Cases decided under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 are helpful in guiding our analysis. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2017Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490 (K.R.L.). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Schlimbach
green
1 sentence2017That act declares places where liquor is 21 entered in that action “impeded on the exclusive jurisdiction of the [Department]” ( 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 1139 ), our Division Three colleagues acknowledged that section 25602.2 provides, “‘The director [of the Department] may bring an action to enjoin a violation or the threatened violation of subdivision (a) of Section 25602,’” but nevertheless rejected Schlimbach’s argument that this provision of the ABC Act restricts the authority to seek such an injunction to the Department director. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fong v. Sternes
green
1 sentence2017The Nature of an Injunction Approaching the matter from a different direction, CEH argues that an action to enjoin a violation of Proposition 65 is not governed by section 393(a) because an 8 At oral argument before this court, CEH’s counsel insisted that two published cases have applied the main relief rule to resolve a venue dispute that did not involve rights to real property: Ah Fong, supra, 79 Cal. 30 ; and K.R.L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.
green
2 sentences2016We note that the recent opinion in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919 [ 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 , 365 P.3d 845 ] (Yvanova) does not control this case. 2016We note that the recent opinion in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919 [ 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66 , 365 P.3d 845 ] (Yvanova) does not control this case. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Turner v. Ass'n of American Medical Colleges
green
1 sentence2015Subdivision (b) states that such remedies are “nonexclusive and are in addition to any other remedy provided by law . . . .” (§ 54.3, subd. (b).) However, subdivision (c) bars a simultaneous recovery of damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the DPA, stating: “A person may not be held liable for damages pursuant to both this section and [s]ection 52 for the same act or failure to act.” (§ 54.3, subd. (c).) *940 In a separate provision, the DPA authorizes injunctive relief “to correct violations of DPA standards.” (Turner, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 1059 .) Section 55 states: “Any perso | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
green
1 sentence2010Therefore, for the sake of convenience, our references to Hubbard are to Hubbard II unless otherwise noted. [5] In prescribing the appropriate criteria for discretionary decisions whether to award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under the ADA, the Ninth Circuit in Summers applied the test established for Title VII employment discrimination cases in Christiansburg, supra, 434 U.S. 412 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hubbard v. SOBRECK, LLC
green
2 sentences2010Instead, this appeal is from an order awarding Lee his attorney fees in the amount of $118,458 under Civil Code section 55 [1] (Section 55), which mandates that the prevailing party in an action to enjoin a violation of disability access requirements " shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees." (Italics added.) Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC (9th Cir. 2008) 531 F.3d 983 ( Hubbard I ), opinion amended and superseded on denial of rehearing by Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC (9th Cir. 2009) 554 F.3d 742 ( Hubbard II ), Jankey claims that attorney fees we 2010Section 55 also provides that "[a]ny person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of Section 54 or 54.1 of this code, Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or Part 5.5 (commencing with Section 19955) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code may bring an action to enjoin the violation." [2] DREES is described in Jankey's pleadings as a nonprofit organization "that works with persons with disabilities to empower them to be independent in American society." [3] For simplicity's sake, we will hereafter use the single term " | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hubbard v. SOBRECK, LLC
green
2 sentences2010Instead, this appeal is from an order awarding Lee his attorney fees in the amount of $118,458 under Civil Code section 55 [1] (Section 55), which mandates that the prevailing party in an action to enjoin a violation of disability access requirements " shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees." (Italics added.) Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC (9th Cir. 2008) 531 F.3d 983 ( Hubbard I ), opinion amended and superseded on denial of rehearing by Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC (9th Cir. 2009) 554 F.3d 742 ( Hubbard II ), Jankey claims that attorney fees we 2010Section 55 also provides that "[a]ny person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of Section 54 or 54.1 of this code, Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or Part 5.5 (commencing with Section 19955) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code may bring an action to enjoin the violation." [2] DREES is described in Jankey's pleadings as a nonprofit organization "that works with persons with disabilities to empower them to be independent in American society." [3] For simplicity's sake, we will hereafter use the single term " | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
green
2 sentences1975In People v. Superior Court (Witzerman), 248 Cal.App.2d 276 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 393 ], the superior court had limited the right of government officials to engage in discovery which was permitted them by law, in an action to enjoin violation of the state’s corporate security laws. 1975In People v. Superior Court (Witzerman), 248 Cal.App.2d 276 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 393 ], the superior court had limited the right of government officials to engage in discovery which was permitted them by law, in an action to enjoin violation of the state’s corporate security laws. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp.
green
2 sentences1973He cites Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 199 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 878 , 404 P.2d 486 ], an action to enjoin violation of the Unfair Practices Act. 1973He cites Tri-Q, Inc. v. Sta-Hi Corp. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 199 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 878 , 404 P.2d 486 ], an action to enjoin violation of the Unfair Practices Act. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
People v. Pay Less Drug Store
green
2 sentences1965Section 17071 is as follows: “In all actions brought under this chapter proof of one or more acts of selling or giving away any article or product below cost or at' discriminatory prices, together with proof of the injurious effect of such acts, is presumptive evidence of the purpose or intent to injure competitors or destroy competition. ’ ’ In People v. Pay Less Drug Store, 25 Cal.2d 108 [ 153 P.2d 9 ], an action to enjoin violation of the Unfair Practices Act, the court said at page 114: “Proof of injurious effect is permitted to be shown with the proof of sales below cost as presumptive or 1965Section 17071 is as follows: “In all actions brought under this chapter proof of one or more acts of selling or giving away any article or product below cost or at' discriminatory prices, together with proof of the injurious effect of such acts, is presumptive evidence of the purpose or intent to injure competitors or destroy competition. ’ ’ In People v. Pay Less Drug Store, 25 Cal.2d 108 [ 153 P.2d 9 ], an action to enjoin violation of the Unfair Practices Act, the court said at page 114: “Proof of injurious effect is permitted to be shown with the proof of sales below cost as presumptive or | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.