People Ex Rel. Clancy v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the contingent fee arrangement between the city government and outside counsel was improper
• “Nothing we say herein should be construed as preventing the government, under appropriate circumstances, from engaging private counsel.”
• “Nothing we say herein should be construed as preventing the government, under appropriate circumstances, from engaging private counsel.”
• issuing writ of mandate to address motion to disqualify counsel hired pursuant to contingent fee agreement
• noting public nuisance abatement actions may share the public interest aspect of criminal cases and coincide with or trigger criminal prosecutions, such that there is a need for a neutral prosecuting attorney
• noting, however, that “there is virtually no law on the subject”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).