California Supreme Court· 7/1/1874
Lamont v. Solano Cty.
Citations
- 49 Cal. 158
Syllabus
<p>Compensation of Attorney.—The compensation of an attorney for services rendered by him pursuant to appointment by the Court in defense of a pauper prisoner, is not a charge against the county.</p> <p>Attorney’s Expenditures.—An attorney defending a pauper prisoner by appointment of Court, cannot recover against the county for moneys expended by him in conducting the defense.</p>
Judges: Wallace
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of IowaSupreme Court· 1989-05-01· cited 4,814×
- United States v. Edward J. Dillon, Petition of Manley B. StrayerNinth Circuit· 1965-07-27· cited 131×
- Melvin Leroy Tyler v. Warden Lark Norton Y. Beilenson v. Treasurer of the United StatesEighth Circuit· 1973-01-25· cited 69×
- Weiner v. Fulton CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1966-02-11· cited 30×
- County of Fresno v. Superior Court of Fresno Cty.California Court of Appeal· 1978-06-26· cited 27×
- Hill v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1956-02-10· cited 23×
- Pardee v. Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court· 1911-09-22· cited 18×
- Sears v. Gallatin CountyMontana Supreme Court· 1898-02-14· cited 9×
- County of Santa Clara v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1992-01-29· cited 6×
- People v. AgnewCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1952-11-17· cited 4×
- Brown v. Warren CountySupreme Court of Iowa· 1912-03-15· cited 3×
- People v. AgnewAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 1952-11-17
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.