Susan Resnick, Complainant, v. Thomas J. Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security<1>, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 22,349 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 9,150 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 9,707 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 1,630 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"
Copeland v. Marshall
641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 1,036 times
Holding that "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"
National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense
675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Cited 535 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"
Cygnar v. City of Chicago
865 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 169 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 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"

Susan Resnick, Complainant, v. Thomas J. Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security<1>, Agency.

8 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 "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"

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

Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations

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