§Why CasetextPricing

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation et al

REPLY

21 Cited authorities

  1. Spegon v. the Catholic Bishop of Chicago

    175 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 690 times
    Holding that the court should disallow hours expended by an attorney on tasks that are easily delegable to non-professional assistance

  2. Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.

    664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 359 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

  3. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.

    90 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 416 times
    Finding it reasonable to require attorneys to delegate work to the “correct level” of employee

  4. 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

  5. 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"

  6. Johnson v. GDF, Inc.

    668 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the district court is entitled to determine the probative value of each affidavit submitted in support of establishing a market rate for attorney's fees in FLSA case

  7. Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales

    267 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 150 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may prove the existence of an exceptional case by showing inequitable conduct before the PTO

  8. Mathis v. Spears

    857 F.2d 749 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 198 times
    Holding that interest runs from the date of the judgment authorizing the right to the award, not from the date of a later judgment establishing its exact amount

  9. Hutchison v. Amateur Elec. Supply, Inc.

    42 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 145 times
    Holding that "uncertainty" in calculating prejudgment interest does not "defeat the presumption in favor of prejudgment interest" and "[i]t is not within the district court's discretion to deny the whole award of interest because of ... calculational ambiguities"

  10. Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy Inc.

    776 F.2d 646 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to compel discovery in connection with plaintiff's fee petition of the hours worked by Sealy's attorney "[w]ithout suggesting the court would have erred by compelling discovery"

  11. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,613 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney