Grimsley

Grimsley v. Board of Supervisors

Good Law
169 Cal. App. 3d 960·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2340·213 Cal. Rptr. 108
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 1985Docket Nos. A021794, A025660California1,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elkington, J.

Plaintiff Roger Grimsley appeals from two successive orders denying him attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, following judgment in his action against the above-captioned defendant agencies and officials of the County of San Benito “for alternative writ of prohibition and mandate and for injunctive relief re inadequate county general plan and open-space plan.”

The material factual-procedural context of the appeals follows.

In Starbird v. San Benito County (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 657 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 149 ], we found serious shortcomings in the county’s “general plan in light of the requirements of Government Code sections 65300-65360 and CEQA.” We in effect directed the county to remedy such shortcomings, and we held plaintiff Starbird to be entitled to attorney fees under the “private attorney general” concept according to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. We nevertheless perceived “a purpose of the County to promptly amend or reorganize its general plan under the changed law, now codified as Government Code sections 65300.7, 65301.5, 65302.1 and 65302.6 . . . .” (Id., at p. 664.)

San Benito County thereafter took steps to appropriately revise…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.