Miller v. California Commission on Status of Women

Bad Law
176 Cal. App. 3d 454·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2949·222 Cal. Rptr. 225
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 1985Civ. 24371California1,762 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sparks, J.

Plaintiffs Rita Miller et al. (collectively Miller), in an amazing display of chutzpah, seek to recover their attorneys’ fees from defendant California Commission on the Status of Women (Commission) in the trial court after this court had reversed a judgment in Miller’s favor in the most recent appeal in this case. (Miller v. California Com. on Status of Women (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 693 [ 198 Cal.Rptr. 877 ] [Miller II].) Not surprisingly, the trial court denied the request. Miller appeals. We affirm.

Background

To appreciate the absence of any basis for the requested fees, we need to reconstruct—briefly—the evolution and extinction of this case. The action was originally filed in 1976, challenging the Commission’s expenditure of public funds for the promotion of the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution (an issue subsequently mooted by the failure of the amendment to achieve ratification). The superior court granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment. We reversed on appeal. (Miller v. Miller (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 764 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 197 ] [Miller I].) Citing Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 551 P.2d 1 ], we first…

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.