Jay Janssen, Complainant, v. Board of County Commissioners, County of Fremont, Colorado, Respondent.

19 Cited authorities

Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 9,085 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”
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
519 U.S. 337 (1997) Cited 2,529 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,681 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 "
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997) Cited 775 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional a statute obligating state law enforcement officers to implement a federal gun-control law
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth
469 U.S. 528 (1985) Cited 986 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that local governments are not constitutionally immune from federal employment laws, and overruling National League of Cities v. Usery , 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245, after "eight years" of experience under that regime showed Usery ’s standard was unworkable and, in practice, undermined the federalism principles the decision sought to protect
Ray v. Henderson
217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,325 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim, "an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity"
Reno v. Condon
528 U.S. 141 (2000) Cited 235 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal statute did not commandeer state officials where it neither required state legislatures to enact laws or regulations nor required state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes
Barjon v. Dalton
132 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 532 times
Holding that the plaintiffs' counsel were not entitled to compensation for a seventeen-month delay in the payment of approximately $11,500 in attorney's fees in one matter and a fourteen-month delay in the payment of approximately $8,000 in fees in another matter, because "the delay itself was not very long and the amount of fees not very high"
Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton
31 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1994) Cited 435 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence that plaintiff's out-of-state attorneys' rates were charged to and actually paid by plaintiff, and that persons involved in charging and paying rates believed them to be reasonable was sufficient to establish prevailing market rate for services charged by the attorneys
South Carolina v. Baker
485 U.S. 505 (1988) Cited 153 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal tax law was constitutional where it "regulates state activities" and does not "seek to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties"

Jay Janssen, Complainant, v. Board of County Commissioners, County of Fremont, Colorado, Respondent.

19 Cited authorities

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 the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII

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 unconstitutional a statute obligating state law enforcement officers to implement a federal gun-control law

Holding that for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim, "an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity"

Holding that a federal statute did not commandeer state officials where it neither required state legislatures to enact laws or regulations nor required state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes

Holding that evidence that plaintiff's out-of-state attorneys' rates were charged to and actually paid by plaintiff, and that persons involved in charging and paying rates believed them to be reasonable was sufficient to establish prevailing market rate for services charged by the attorneys

Holding that a federal tax law was constitutional where it "regulates state activities" and does not "seek to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties"