10 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 21,734 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. Pierce v. Underwood

    487 U.S. 552 (1988)   Cited 9,157 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when Congress reenacts a statute without changing its language, and when there is no indication that “Congress thought it was doing anything ... except reenacting and making permanent” the earlier legislation, a court should not give weight to legislative history pertaining to the reenactment
  3. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 8,893 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”
  4. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc.

    214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 989 times
    Holding that a district court may reduce hours to offset "poorly documented" billing
  5. Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co.

    214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 696 times
    Holding that district courts should not include hours that are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary"
  6. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles

    796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 1,110 times
    Holding that for purposes of claiming a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, "counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended."
  7. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Intern., Inc.

    6 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 344 times
    Holding that brief served as notice of appeal from determination of award of attorney's fees despite fact that fees determined after appeal noticed from underlying judgment
  8. Reygo Pac. Corp. v. Johnston Pump Co.

    680 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, a discovery request is "substantially justified" if "reasonable people could differ as to whether the party requested must comply"
  9. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Futrell

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00977-PMP-CWH (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2012)   Cited 13 times

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00977-PMP-CWH 10-16-2012 AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. DON JUAN W. FUTRELL, Defendant. DON JUAN W. FUTRELL, Counter-Claimant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Counter-Defendants. C.W. Hoffman, Jr. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff American General Life Insurance Company's Application for Attorneys' Fees (#67), filed August 8, 2012. The Court also considered Defendant/Counter-Claimant Don Juan Futrell's

  10. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,546 times   323 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness