33 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,449 times 228 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,676 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 2,494 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 8,870 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”
Farrar v. Hobby
506 U.S. 103 (1992) Cited 3,587 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status
Obergefell v. Hodges
576 U.S. 644 (2015) Cited 857 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of same-sex couples to marry in light of doctrinal developments, as well as fundamentally changed social understanding
Blanchard v. Bergeron
489 U.S. 87 (1989) Cited 2,048 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because there is no requirement in § 1988 that attorney's fees be incurred, contingent-fee agreements do not impose an automatic ceiling on the fees amount
Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist
489 U.S. 782 (1989) Cited 1,873 times
Holding that where party seeks attorney's fees pursuant to fee-shifting statute, "no fee award is permissible until the [party] has crossed the statutory threshold of prevailing party status" (internal quotation marked omitted)
United States v. Windsor
570 U.S. 744 (2013) Cited 675 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"
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) Cited 7,719 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
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 490,212 times 694 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,473 times 143 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 21,850 times 43 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)

DeBoer et al v. Snyder et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

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 an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status

Holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of same-sex couples to marry in light of doctrinal developments, as well as fundamentally changed social understanding

Holding that, because there is no requirement in § 1988 that attorney's fees be incurred, contingent-fee agreements do not impose an automatic ceiling on the fees amount

Holding that where party seeks attorney's fees pursuant to fee-shifting statute, "no fee award is permissible until the [party] has crossed the statutory threshold of prevailing party status" (internal quotation marked omitted)

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

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

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)