34 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,596 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
Buckhannon Board Care Home v. West Va. D.H.H.R
532 U.S. 598 (2001) Cited 3,802 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,827 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Hanrahan v. Hampton
446 U.S. 754 (1980) Cited 861 times
Holding that the plaintiffs were not "prevailing part[ies]" pursuant to § 1988(b) because "[t]he Court of Appeals held only that the [plaintiffs] were entitled to a trial of their cause"
Roger Whitmore's Auto. Servs., Inc. v. Lake Cty.
424 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2005) Cited 340 times
Holding that there was no closed-ended continuity where the plaintiff identified a "dozen or so" victims
Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc.
788 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 549 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion
Branson v. Nott
62 F.3d 287 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 288 times
Holding that a district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not preclude it from imposing Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint
Wages v. I.R.S
915 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 303 times
Holding that an untimely post-trial motion “does not toll time for appeal from, or affect the finality of, the original judgment”
Torres-Negrón v. J & N Records, LLC
504 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2007) Cited 160 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction did not confer prevailing party status
Hill v. Potter
352 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 147 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a failure to cooperate with the EEOC constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,805 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)
Section 505 - Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
17 U.S.C. § 505 Cited 2,974 times 70 Legal Analyses
Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases

Hyperquest, Inc. v. N'Site Solutions, Inc. et al

34 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 the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."

Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that the plaintiffs were not "prevailing part[ies]" pursuant to § 1988(b) because "[t]he Court of Appeals held only that the [plaintiffs] were entitled to a trial of their cause"

Holding that there was no closed-ended continuity where the plaintiff identified a "dozen or so" victims

Holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion

Holding that a district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not preclude it from imposing Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint

Holding that an untimely post-trial motion “does not toll time for appeal from, or affect the finality of, the original judgment”

Holding that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction did not confer prevailing party status

Holding that a failure to cooperate with the EEOC constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies

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)

Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases