Hensley v. Eckerhart

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

Blum v. Stenson

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”

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.

Holding that "the novelty and difficulty of the questions" involved in the case is a factor in the determination of a reasonable fee

Staton v. Boeing Co.

Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.

Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”

Dunleavy v. Nadler

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an incentive award to the class representatives

Six Mexican Wkrs. v. Ariz. Citrus Growers

Holding the "district court did not abuse its discretion by calculating attorneys' fees as a percentage of the total fund" in a similar statutory regime where discrete violations totaled either $250 or $500

In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation

Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the absence of substantial objections by class members weighed in favor of approval

IN RE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYS. LIT

Holding that the district court "abuse[d] its discretion in refusing to reconsider its initial decision in light of additional documentation . . . provided by the . . . firm in support of its motion for reconsideration"

Abrams v. Lightolier Inc.

Holding that "evidence as to [a supervisor's] attitude toward other older employees and the manner in which he treated them" was relevant to whether supervisor "harbored a discriminatory attitude against older workers, and if credited, that evidence made the existence of an improper motive for the discharge decision more probable."

Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Section 1750 - Title of act

Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state