§

James A. Patterson, Complainant, v. Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

07a20128 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 22, 2003)
James A. Patterson, Complainant, v. Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 22,293 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

  2. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 9,132 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”

  3. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,697 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 "

  4. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,629 times   5 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"

  5. National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense

    675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982)   Cited 533 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"

  6. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,051 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"