§Why CasetextPricing

O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

RESPONSE

74 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 21,676 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

  2. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.

    482 U.S. 437 (1987)   Cited 2,703 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert witness fees are not available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) because "when a prevailing party seeks reimbursement for fees paid to its own expert witnesses, a federal court is bound by the limit of § 1821(b), absent contract or explicit statutory authority to the contrary"

  3. Missouri v. Jenkins

    491 U.S. 274 (1989)   Cited 2,334 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that reasonable attorney's fees includes the costs of paralegals' time

  4. Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist

    489 U.S. 782 (1989)   Cited 1,873 times
    Holding that where party seeks attorney's fees pursuant to fee-shifting statute, "no fee award is permissible until the [party] has crossed the statutory threshold of prevailing party status" (internal quotation marked omitted)

  5. A.C.S.D.B.E. v. Murphy

    548 U.S. 291 (2006)   Cited 515 times
    Holding that the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a Spending Clause statute, fails to furnish "clear notice" that a funding recipient could face liability to a prevailing parent for the cost of services rendered by experts

  6. West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey

    499 U.S. 83 (1991)   Cited 803 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term "reasonable attorney's fee" in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not provide the "explicit statutory authority" required to award expert witness fees beyond those provided by §§ 1920 and 1821

  7. Jones v. GN Netcom, Inc.

    654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,471 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts should "award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained," even where counting all hours reasonably spent would produce a larger fees award

  8. Camacho v. Bridgeport

    523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,494 times
    Holding that fees-on-fees must be calculated using the lodestar method

  9. Moreno v. Sacramento

    534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,266 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"

  10. Barfield v. New York City

    537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 917 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an entity can constitute a "joint employer even absent a showing of subterfuge or business bad faith"

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,135 times   1237 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  12. Section 1920 - Taxation of costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 12,606 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

  13. Section 1821 - Per diem and mileage generally; subsistence

    28 U.S.C. § 1821   Cited 2,258 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Enumerating witness fees and disbursements

  14. Section 26 - Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs

    15 U.S.C. § 26   Cited 1,457 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"