19 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,532 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 8,803 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”
Blanchard v. Bergeron
489 U.S. 87 (1989) Cited 2,033 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
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) Cited 7,660 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the novelty and difficulty of the questions" involved in the case is a factor in the determination of a reasonable fee
Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) Cited 360 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the attorney's substantial evidence pointed to a rate lower than the one requested, but observing that if defendant had submitted no evidence on this issue, then the district court would be required to award fees at plaintiff's proposed rate
Cross Med Prod v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 347 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement
Denius v. Dunlap
330 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 298 times
Holding that district court erred when it refused to take judicial notice of information on official federal agency website that maintained medical records on retired military personnel; that fact was appropriate for judicial notice because it is not subject to reasonable dispute
Farfaras v. Citizens Bank and Trust of Chicago
433 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 276 times
Holding that continuous sexual harassment by three superiors constituted extremely reprehensible conduct
In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation
264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 234 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should award class counsel market-rate litigation expenses and that "[i]f counsel submit bills with the level of detail that paying clients find satisfactory, a federal court should not require more"
Central Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.
723 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 208 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "award of expenses was properly within the scope of § 285"
Section 285 - Attorney fees
35 U.S.C. § 285 Cited 3,195 times 476 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation et al

19 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, 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 that "the novelty and difficulty of the questions" involved in the case is a factor in the determination of a reasonable fee

Holding that the attorney's substantial evidence pointed to a rate lower than the one requested, but observing that if defendant had submitted no evidence on this issue, then the district court would be required to award fees at plaintiff's proposed rate

Holding that there can be no direct infringement of a product claim where surgeons, and not the defendant, made the claimed apparatus in the operating room, and remanding to determine whether the surgeons directly infringed such that Medtronic could be held liable for indirect infringement

Holding that district court erred when it refused to take judicial notice of information on official federal agency website that maintained medical records on retired military personnel; that fact was appropriate for judicial notice because it is not subject to reasonable dispute

Holding that continuous sexual harassment by three superiors constituted extremely reprehensible conduct

Holding that courts should award class counsel market-rate litigation expenses and that "[i]f counsel submit bills with the level of detail that paying clients find satisfactory, a federal court should not require more"

Holding that an "award of expenses was properly within the scope of § 285"

Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases