37 Cited authorities

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
Buckhannon Board Care Home v. West Va. D.H.H.R
532 U.S. 598 (2001) Cited 3,823 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party becomes a prevailing party once there is a "judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties"
Perdue v. Kenny A.
559 U.S. 542 (2010) Cited 2,494 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,870 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”
Farrar v. Hobby
506 U.S. 103 (1992) Cited 3,587 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status
Burlington v. Dague
505 U.S. 557 (1992) Cited 2,126 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the contingency aspect of a case cannot be considered when determining a statutory fee award
Lawrence v. Texas
539 U.S. 558 (2003) Cited 1,154 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding statute that criminalizes two persons of same sex engaging in intimate sexual conduct unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment
United States v. Windsor
570 U.S. 744 (2013) Cited 675 times 93 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) Cited 7,719 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
Christian Legal Soc. Chapter v. Martinez
561 U.S. 661 (2010) Cited 354 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "all-comers" policy that requires all student groups to accept all members does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,473 times 143 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,850 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 3101.01 - Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent
Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 Cited 47 times
Providing that "[m]ale persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage"

Obergefell et al v. Kasich et al

37 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 a party becomes a prevailing party once there is a "judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties"

Holding that enhancement is permitted only in "rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered"

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 an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status

Holding that the contingency aspect of a case cannot be considered when determining a statutory fee award

Holding statute that criminalizes two persons of same sex engaging in intimate sexual conduct unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"

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 an "all-comers" policy that requires all student groups to accept all members does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

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)

Providing that "[m]ale persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage"