Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 11

Citation
§ 11
Parent Document
Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2010-01-19

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text

364 chars
§ 11.2, p. 289, italics added.) The Supreme Court reasoned: “because the anti-SLAPP [attorney fee] provisions refer to attorney fees and costs without indicating any restrictions on how they are to be calculated, we accordingly presume that the Legislature intended courts use the prevailing lodestar adjustment method. [Citation.]” (Ketchum v. Moses, at p. 1136.)