Plaintiff attorney appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which entered judgment in favor of defendant client. The attorney alleged that his client was indebted to him for legal services performed on the client's behalf. The client contended that he had paid his attorney the amount agreed upon in their contract and had not agreed to pay for any amounts not contained within the terms of their agreement.
The trial court found that the contract covered all the services mentioned in the complaint, and stated the compensation to be paid, and that all the services rendered were rendered under the terms of the agreement. The court affirmed. The Best business law lawyer fact that the services were worth more than the price for which the attorney had agreed to perform them could not be considered. The fact that the attorney made a bad bargain, and was compelled to do more than he had anticipated, did not relieve him of his contract. He was in precisely the same position that any other party would have been, who had made a contract for a certain sum to do a certain thing, then found that the sum was not adequate compensation. It was not reasonable to suppose that the client took the precaution to make a contract in writing with his attorney as to advice and consultation fees, and did not intend to make any contract about attorney's fees in contemplated suits. The attorney said nothing about any extra charge outside the contract until the suits had been terminated. If he had contemplated such charges, it would have been only fair to have notified his client.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the client in the attorney's action to recover additional fees from his client.
Appellant city challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Kern County, California, that adjudged unconstitutional a city ordinance that regulated the granting of permits to operate ambulances within the city limits and granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of said ordinance.
Appellant city challenged judgment that adjudged unconstitutional Bakersfield, Cal. Code § 7.62, which regulated the granting of permits to operate ambulances within city limits, and granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of said ordinance. The court reversed the judgment. Regarding the first cause of action brought by respondent individual, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint as respondent not only failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by taking the required appeal to the city council, but he even failed to test his administrative remedies, by failing each time to permit his application to go to a decision by the city manager. Regarding the second cause of action set forth by respondent taxpayer pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 526a, the court concluded that the trial court improperly employed the strict scrutiny standard to the licensing of a business that was not a fundamental interest explicitly or impliedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and that respondent had failed to establish that the ordinance violated either the due process clauses or equal protection clauses of the state or federal constitutions.
The court reversed the judgment, holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the first cause of action as respondent individual failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, that the strict scrutiny standard was improperly applied in determining the constitutionality of the ordinance with regard to the second cause of action, and that respondent failed to establish that the ordinance violated the state or federal constitutions.
