§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 21,574 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 2,688 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 2,324 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 1,866 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 509 times
    Holding parents cannot recover expert witness fees under the IDEA attorney fee provision because Congress did not "unambiguously" authorize such an award and the term of art "costs" is a reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, "the general statute governing the taxation of costs in federal court"

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

    499 U.S. 83 (1991)   Cited 802 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 1,456 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 1,474 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 1,257 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 910 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 34,939 times   1234 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 12,492 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 2,252 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 1,451 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"