14 Cited authorities

  1. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.

    488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 6,590 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the novelty and difficulty of the questions" involved in the case is a factor in the determination of a reasonable fee
  2. Louisiana Power Light Co. v. Kellstrom

    50 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 1995)   Cited 832 times
    Holding that refusing to award fees for costs litigation when the prevailing party "recovered only part of the costs and fees it requested . . . fell well within the district court's proper exercise of its discretion"
  3. Watkins v. Fordice

    7 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 534 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the hourly rate billed by 50% for travel time
  4. Combs v. City of Huntington

    829 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that in calculating the lodestar, "[t]he court should exclude all time that is excessive, duplicative, or inadequately documented."
  5. Miller v. Raytheon Co.

    716 F.3d 138 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury is entitled to look to erroneous statements made in an EEOC position statement as circumstantial evidence of discrimination
  6. In re Enron Corp. Securities

    586 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Tex. 2008)   Cited 91 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fifth Circuit does not recognize scheme liability in omissions cases under Rule 10b–5 absent a recognized duty to disclose
  7. Regions Bank v. Lowrey

    101 So. 3d 210 (Ala. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that a bank, serving as trustee, did not breach its fiduciary duty to beneficiaries of a trust
  8. Michaels Stores Procurement Co. v. DMR Constr., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-1436-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2019)

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-1436-B 01-31-2019 MICHAELS STORES PROCUREMENT CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. DMR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant. JANE J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Michaels Stores Procurement Co., Inc.'s request for attorney's fees and costs (Doc. 13), filed on November 16, 2018, against Defendant DMR Construction, Inc. For the following reasons the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from a construction

  9. Slipchenko v. Brunel Energy, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-1465 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-1465 01-23-2015 TAMARA SLIPCHENKO, DAVID "COWBOY" BOSWELL, and VALORIE BARTON, on behalf of all other persons, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRUNEL ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants. Lee H. Rosenthal United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs, Tamara Slipchenko, David R. Boswell, and Valorie Barton, worked for Brunel Energy, Inc., a Houston-based subsidiary of Brunel International N.V. (together, "Brunel"). The plaintiffs sued Brunel on behalf of themselves

  10. Hart v. Jackson

    607 So. 2d 161 (Ala. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Hart v. Jackson, 607 So.2d 161, 163 (Ala. 1992), this Court held that "Hart's reliance on what she describes as the bank's policy of treating 'or' accounts as joint accounts with right of survivorship is not germane to the question of ownership interests between the alleged owners of the accounts."
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 278,986 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 31,736 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Granting $7,100.30 of the $36,681.63 requested
  13. Section 1920 - Taxation of costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 9,173 times   84 Legal Analyses
    Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States
  14. Section 1920 - Suits by and against Secretary of Commerce

    19 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 8 times

    In providing technical and financial assistance under sections 1913 and 1914 1 of this title, the Secretary of Commerce may sue and be sued in any court of record of a State having general jurisdiction or in any United States district court, and jurisdiction is conferred upon such district court to determine such controversies without regard to the amount in controversy; but no attachment, injunction, garnishment, or other similar process, mesne or final, shall be issued against him or his property