23 Cited authorities

Commissioner, INS v. Jean
496 U.S. 154 (1990) Cited 2,542 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that this inquiry applies to attorney's fees under the EAJA
Norman v. Housing Auth., City of Montgomery
836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) Cited 2,783 times
Holding that, when there is inadequate evidence of a prevailing market rate for a particular service, the district court is considered an expert on the question of reasonable fees and can consider its own knowledge and experience without additional pleadings or a hearing
American Civil Liberties Un. of Ga. v. Barnes
168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 1,218 times
Holding that the relevant market for attorney services and corresponding hourly rates is determined by where the case is filed
Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc.
548 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 552 times
Holding that conducting both an hour-by-hour analysis and applying an across-the-board 50% reduction was an abuse of discretion
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles
796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 1,088 times
Holding that for purposes of claiming a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, "counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended."
Gierlinger v. Gleason
160 F.3d 858 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 637 times
Holding that district court abused its discretion in presuming jury award included prejudgment interest because prejudgment interest was never mentioned
Jean v. Nelson
863 F.2d 759 (11th Cir. 1988) Cited 646 times
Holding "that the United States may not oppose a `fees for fees' request [under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412,] solely on the ground that its position in the fee litigation was substantially justified"
Duckworth v. Whisenant
97 F.3d 1393 (11th Cir. 1996) Cited 378 times
Holding that "costs such as general copying, computerized legal research, postage, courthouse parking fees and expert witness fees . . . are clearly nonrecoverable" under § 1920
Institutionalized Juveniles v. Secretary of Public Welfare
758 F.2d 897 (3d Cir. 1985) Cited 259 times
Holding that courts should "treat the fee petition litigation as a separate entity subject to lodestar and Hensley reduction analysis"
Michigan v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency
254 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 52 times
Holding plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees where the underlying litigation “concerned a lack of public notice and comment,” and plaintiff “obtain[ed] the right to notice an comment on issue”
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 484,956 times 687 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,750 times 42 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)

Garrido v. Dudek

23 Cited authorities

Holding that this inquiry applies to attorney's fees under the EAJA

Holding that, when there is inadequate evidence of a prevailing market rate for a particular service, the district court is considered an expert on the question of reasonable fees and can consider its own knowledge and experience without additional pleadings or a hearing

Holding that the relevant market for attorney services and corresponding hourly rates is determined by where the case is filed

Holding that conducting both an hour-by-hour analysis and applying an across-the-board 50% reduction was an abuse of discretion

Holding that for purposes of claiming a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, "counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended."

Holding that district court abused its discretion in presuming jury award included prejudgment interest because prejudgment interest was never mentioned

Holding "that the United States may not oppose a `fees for fees' request [under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412,] solely on the ground that its position in the fee litigation was substantially justified"

Holding that "costs such as general copying, computerized legal research, postage, courthouse parking fees and expert witness fees . . . are clearly nonrecoverable" under § 1920

Holding that courts should "treat the fee petition litigation as a separate entity subject to lodestar and Hensley reduction analysis"

Holding plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees where the underlying litigation “concerned a lack of public notice and comment,” and plaintiff “obtain[ed] the right to notice an comment on issue”

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

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)