51 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 17,867 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. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 5,889 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
  3. Farrar v. Hobby

    506 U.S. 103 (1992)   Cited 3,162 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "plaintiffs may be considered ‘prevailing parties' for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issues in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in suit" and that even an award of nominal damages satisfies the prevailing party test
  4. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,526 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
  5. Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council

    478 U.S. 546 (1986)   Cited 2,060 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"
  6. Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist

    489 U.S. 782 (1989)   Cited 1,689 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)
  7. Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys.

    450 U.S. 728 (1981)   Cited 1,431 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Fair Labor Standards Act claims may be brought in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA
  8. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 2,497 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"
  9. Staton v. Boeing Co.

    327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,501 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding class representation was adequate even though the class contained both supervisors and rank-and-file employees
  10. Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States

    679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 3,112 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that settlement of an FLSA claim must be approved by either a court or the Department of Labor
  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 400,396 times   582 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
  12. Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law

    42 U.S.C. § 1981   Cited 33,886 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race
  13. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 28,253 times   1148 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"
  14. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 14,963 times   278 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  15. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 13,854 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Vesting enforcement power in Secretary of Labor
  16. Section 1920 - Taxation of costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 9,629 times   85 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
  17. Section 1021.5 - Attorney's fees in action resulting in enforcement of important right affecting public interest

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5   Cited 1,550 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "a court may award" attorney's fees "to a successful party "
  18. Section 226 - Itemized statement of wages

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226   Cited 1,534 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Providing only statutory penalties
  19. Section 226.7 - Work during meal, rest, or recovery period

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7   Cited 586 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Providing a one-hour wage penalty for denied rest and meal periods
  20. Section 218.5 - Award of attorney's fees

    Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5   Cited 313 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing a right of action for unpaid wages
  21. Section 296-126-092 - Meal periods - Rest periods

    Wash. Admin. Code § 296-126-092   Cited 66 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[e]mployees shall be allowed" meal and rest periods
  22. Section 210.110 - Definitions

    Ill. Admin. Code tit. 56 § 210.110   Cited 23 times
    Providing six factors to determine if an individual is an employee for purposes of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105
  23. Section 839-020-0050 - Meal and Rest Periods

    Or. Admin. R. 839-020-0050   Cited 11 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (1) The purpose of this rule is to prescribe minimum meal periods and rest periods for the preservation of the health of employees. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every employer shall provide to each employee, for each work period of not less than six or more than eight hours, a meal period of not less than 30 continuous minutes during which the employee is relieved of all duties. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, if an employee is not relieved of all duties for 30