21 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,525 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 8,801 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”
Perdue v. Kenny A.
559 U.S. 542 (2010) Cited 2,463 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"
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council
478 U.S. 546 (1986) Cited 2,311 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"
Camacho v. Bridgeport
523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,463 times
Holding that fees-on-fees must be calculated using the lodestar method
Moreno v. Sacramento
534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,250 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron
634 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 639 times
Holding that a district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.
526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1976) Cited 1,981 times 1 Legal Analyses
Adopting 12 factors for consideration in attorney’s fees cases
Costa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
690 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 501 times
Holding that "[d]istrict courts may not apply de facto caps limiting the number of hours attorneys can reasonably expend on 'routine' social security cases," and observing that "[m]any district courts have noted that twenty to forty hours is the range most often requested and granted in social security cases. . . . .
United Steelworkers v. Phelps Dodge Corp.
896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 714 times
Holding that the district court must “presume ... reasonable” an uncontested market fee rate supported by sufficient evidence
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,342 times 65 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,761 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)

Hamby et al v. Parnell et al

21 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 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 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 that fees-on-fees must be calculated using the lodestar method

Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"

Holding that a district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion

Adopting 12 factors for consideration in attorney’s fees cases

Holding that the district court must “presume ... reasonable” an uncontested market fee rate supported by sufficient evidence

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

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)