Bok T. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

10 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,692 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,879 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,577 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,615 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense
675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Cited 524 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"
Coutin v. Young Rubicam Puerto Rico, Inc.
124 F.3d 331 (1st Cir. 1997) Cited 221 times
Finding an award of over $45,000 substantial, especially in view of the fact that it represented three times the plaintiff's yearly salary
U.S. v. Metropolitan Dist. Com'n
847 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1988) Cited 171 times
Approving of District Court's decision to deviate from typical approach to calculating fee award where characteristics of case justified different approach
Brewster v. Dukakis
3 F.3d 488 (1st Cir. 1993) Cited 95 times
Upholding rates applied by court in November of 1992 which were "the very figures adopted in 1991, the year in which much of th[e] work was done"
Foster v. Mydas Associates, Inc.
943 F.2d 139 (1st Cir. 1991) Cited 48 times
Holding that a district court must, at a bare minimum, identify the source of the presumed authority undergirding a fee award, for "different sources of authority impose varying criteria for judging the [award's] appropriateness"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,956 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Bok T. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

10 Cited authorities

Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"

Finding an award of over $45,000 substantial, especially in view of the fact that it represented three times the plaintiff's yearly salary

Approving of District Court's decision to deviate from typical approach to calculating fee award where characteristics of case justified different approach

Upholding rates applied by court in November of 1992 which were "the very figures adopted in 1991, the year in which much of th[e] work was done"

Holding that a district court must, at a bare minimum, identify the source of the presumed authority undergirding a fee award, for "different sources of authority impose varying criteria for judging the [award's] appropriateness"

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"