40 Cited authorities

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
Buckhannon Board Care Home v. West Va. D.H.H.R
532 U.S. 598 (2001) Cited 3,799 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,817 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”
Hunt v. Cromartie
526 U.S. 541 (1999) Cited 2,879 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party
Farrar v. Hobby
506 U.S. 103 (1992) Cited 3,577 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
429 U.S. 252 (1977) Cited 4,288 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."
Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council
478 U.S. 546 (1986) Cited 2,315 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be entitled to attorneys' fees for postdecree enforcement work under the fee-shifting provision of the Clean Air Act, analogizing and relying in part on lower court decisions allowing fees under § 1988 for "post-judgment monitoring"
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)
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
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises
390 U.S. 400 (1968) Cited 1,451 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a barbeque vendor must serve black customers even if he perceives such service as vindicating racial equality, in violation of his religious beliefs
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,202 times 141 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 21,794 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 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
Section 1973c - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973c Cited 894 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth the requirements of § 5
Section 1973l - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973l Cited 63 times
Defining the words "vote" and "voting"

State of Texas v. Holder

40 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 the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."

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 the court must resolve all reasonable inferences and doubts in the nonmoving party's favor and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

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

Holding that a party may be entitled to attorneys' fees for postdecree enforcement work under the fee-shifting provision of the Clean Air Act, analogizing and relying in part on lower court decisions allowing fees under § 1988 for "post-judgment monitoring"

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)

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

Holding that a barbeque vendor must serve black customers even if he perceives such service as vindicating racial equality, in violation of his religious beliefs

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)

Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States

Setting forth the requirements of § 5

Defining the words "vote" and "voting"