Smith A. KETCHUM III, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
John M. MOSES, Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 26, 2001.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 2001.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Krause & Baskin, Marshall W. Krause and Lawrence A. Baskin, San Rafael, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Pamela Smith-Steward, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Margaret A. Rodda, Assistant Attorney General, Tyler B. Pon and Lisa A. Tillman, Deputy Attorneys General, for California Highway Patrol as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Casey Gwinn, City Attorney (San Diego), as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Robin B Johansen and James C. Harrison, San Francisco, for Education Legal Alliance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jeremy L. Friedman; Law Office of Richard M. Pearl and Richard M. Pearl, for Defendant and Respondent.
Law Offices of Charles B. Renfrew, Charles B. Renfrew, San Francisco; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Robert J. Nelson, San Francisco, Joshua P. Davis and Caryn Becker, San Francisco, for The Bar Association of San Francisco, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
The Sturdevant Law Firm, James C. Sturdevant, San Francisco, and Jack P. Hug for Consumer Attorneys of California, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Bailer, Linda M. Dardarian, Debra A Smith, Oakland; and Brad Seligman, Berkeley, for The Impact Fund, et al., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Mark Goldowitz, Richmond, for California Anti-SLAPP Project, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California.
MOSK, J.
Defendant sought mandatory attorney fees after he moved to strike allegations in a so-called strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP action, under section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The superior court granted the motion and awarded attorney fees, including fee enhancements based on contingent risk and the exceptional quality of the legal services provided. We granted review to address the question whether the attorney fees were...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
