44 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,571 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 8,815 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 2,471 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"
Farrar v. Hobby
506 U.S. 103 (1992) Cited 3,577 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status
Missouri v. Jenkins
491 U.S. 274 (1989) Cited 2,324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that reasonable attorney's fees includes the costs of paralegals' time
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council
478 U.S. 546 (1986) Cited 2,314 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"
Blanchard v. Bergeron
489 U.S. 87 (1989) Cited 2,035 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
Riverside v. Rivera
477 U.S. 561 (1986) Cited 1,415 times
Holding a defendant is not liable for § 1988 attorney fees which are incurred after a Rule 68 offer of judgment "where the judgment recovered by the plaintiff is less than the offer"
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council
483 U.S. 711 (1987) Cited 958 times
Holding enhancements generally inappropriate
Millea v. Metro–north R.R. Co.
658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 1,415 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court impermissibly limited attorney's fees to one-third of $612.50 recovery on Family Medical Leave Act claim
Section 1920 - Taxation of costs
28 U.S.C. § 1920 Cited 12,486 times 91 Legal Analyses
Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States

Holland et al v. City of Gerald of et al

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

Holding that reasonable attorney's fees includes the costs of paralegals' time

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, 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 a defendant is not liable for § 1988 attorney fees which are incurred after a Rule 68 offer of judgment "where the judgment recovered by the plaintiff is less than the offer"

Holding enhancements generally inappropriate

Holding that district court impermissibly limited attorney's fees to one-third of $612.50 recovery on Family Medical Leave Act claim

Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States