29 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,943 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
Perdue v. Kenny A.
559 U.S. 542 (2010) Cited 2,553 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,995 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”
Hollingsworth v. Perry
570 U.S. 693 (2013) Cited 990 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that proponents of a ballot initiative who "ha[d] no role ... in the enforcement of " the initiative and were not "agents of the State" lacked standing to defend it on appeal
Burlington v. Dague
505 U.S. 557 (1992) Cited 2,162 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the contingency aspect of a case cannot be considered when determining a statutory fee award
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council
478 U.S. 546 (1986) Cited 2,338 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be entitled to attorneys' fees for postdecree enforcement work under the fee-shifting provision of the Clean Air Act, analogizing and relying in part on lower court decisions allowing fees under § 1988 for "post-judgment monitoring"
United States v. Windsor
570 U.S. 744 (2013) Cited 686 times 93 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council
483 U.S. 711 (1987) Cited 967 times
Holding enhancements generally inappropriate
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) Cited 7,838 times 6 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
Robinson v. City of Edmond
160 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 679 times
Holding claims were related “because they involved a common core of facts as well as closely linked legal theories”
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 42,271 times 144 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 22,051 times 45 Legal Analyses
Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)

Bishop, et al v. Oklahoma, State of, et al

29 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 enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"

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 proponents of a ballot initiative who "ha[d] no role ... in the enforcement of " the initiative and were not "agents of the State" lacked standing to defend it on appeal

Holding that the contingency aspect of a case cannot be considered when determining a statutory fee award

Holding that a party may be entitled to attorneys' fees for postdecree enforcement work under the fee-shifting provision of the Clean Air Act, analogizing and relying in part on lower court decisions allowing fees under § 1988 for "post-judgment monitoring"

Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"

Holding enhancements generally inappropriate

Holding that "the novelty and difficulty of the questions" involved in the case is a factor in the determination of a reasonable fee

Holding claims were related “because they involved a common core of facts as well as closely linked legal theories”

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)