Olson v. Hickman

California Court of Appeal May 23, 1972 No. Civ. 12982Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Government Code section 800, which allows for the recovery of attorney fees in cases of arbitrary or capricious administrative action, is a procedural statute that applies to pending litigation and extends to local public entities.

Issues

Whether Government Code section 800 applies retroactively to a case pending on its effective date.
Whether Government Code section 800 applies to administrative actions taken by a local public entity under a county charter.

Disposition. Remanded with directions

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 800 classes itself as an ancillary provision, creating no new cause of action. It is procedural only. A lawsuit is governed by a change in procedural rules made during its pendency”

“We do now find it “arbitrary and capricious” within the meaning of section 800.”

“We have determined that $1,000 is a reasonable fee to be paid by the County of Sacramento for the services of petitioner’s attorney rendered on appeal.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

On February 28, 1972, we filed our decision

reversing the judgment of the superior court and directing that court to issue a writ of mandate which would accomplish petitioner Olson’s reinstatement to

[922]

his civil service position in the Sacramento County Assessor’s office and the payment of back salary.

On April 19, 1972, we granted petitioner’s application for a temporary stay of the remittitur in order to- consider his motion for an allowance of an attorney fee of $1,500 pursuant to Government Code section 800.

His motion came on regularly for hearing in open, court on May 16, 1972.

Government Code section 800 was enacted by Statutes of 1971, chapter 1655, which was signed by the Governor and filed on November 30, 1971. Its effective date was March, 4, 1972. The briefs in this appeal had been filed before the statute’s enactment and thus did not bring it to our attention.

Respondent County of Sacramento invokes the general rule of construction which frowns upon statutory retroactivity in the absence of a clear legislative direction. The rule has no application here. Section 800 classes itself as an ancillary provision, creating no new cause of action. It is procedural only. A lawsuit is governed by a change in procedural rules made during its pendency, and the suit is pending until its final determination on, appeal.

(Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp.

C.S.T., Ltd.,

29 Cal.2d 228, 233 [174 P.2d 441];

Romero

Hern,

276 Cal.App.2d 787, 791-792 [81 Cal.Rptr. 281].)

Olson v. Hickman

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief