13 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,583 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 2,472 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"
Fox v. Vice
563 U.S. 826 (2011) Cited 1,785 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"
United States v. Windsor
570 U.S. 744 (2013) Cited 674 times 92 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"
Copeland v. Marshall
641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 1,022 times
Holding that "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"
Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico
247 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2001) Cited 318 times
Holding that, in determining reasonable fees under the lodestar method, the court "calculates the time counsel spent on the case, subtracts duplicative, unproductive, or excessive hours, and then applies prevailing rates in the community (taking into account the qualifications, experience, and specialized competence of the attorneys involved)"
Bostic v. Schaefer
760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) Cited 195 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that only one plaintiff need have standing for the Court to consider a particular claim
Kitchen v. Herbert
755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) Cited 121 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Utah statutes and state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment
Herrington v. County of Sonoma
883 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 79 times
Holding that the fact that the plaintiff was motivated by "an expectancy of personal financial gain" was not a special circumstance
Duehmig v. Kitzhaber
994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014) Cited 27 times
Declining to recognize a fundamental right to same sex marriage, instead ruling on equal protection grounds
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 487,095 times 691 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 21,797 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

13 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 district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"

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 "in Title VII and similar fee-setting cases," a court may grant an "adjustment to reflect the delay in receipt of payment" because such delay "deprives the eventual recipient of the value of the use of the money in the meantime"

Holding that only one plaintiff need have standing for the Court to consider a particular claim

Holding Utah statutes and state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

Holding that the fact that the plaintiff was motivated by "an expectancy of personal financial gain" was not a special circumstance

Declining to recognize a fundamental right to same sex marriage, instead ruling on equal protection grounds

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)