Citation network
Hensley Vs. Eckerhart
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 16, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 424 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
U.S. 424 (1983) Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
U.S. 988 (1982), and now vacate and remand for further proceedings. II In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 4 (1976) (quoting Newman v. PiggieSearch
-
determined on the facts of each case. On this issue, the House Report simply refers to 12 factors set forth in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
is confirmed in varying degrees by the other cases cited approvingly in the Senate Report. In Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
F.R.D. at 684. In Davis v. CountySearch
-
Id. at 5049. Similarly, the District Court in Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
Nadeau v. HelgemoeSearch
-
Copeland v. MarshallSearch
-
Davis v. CountySearch
-
not be reduced simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit. See Davis v. CountySearch
-
and not be reduced because the rights involved may be nonpecuniary in nature. The appropriate standards, see Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974), are correctly applied in such cases as Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
have stated flatly that plaintiffs should not recover fees for any work on unsuccessful claims. See, e.g., Bartholomew v. WatsonSearch
-
Muscare v. QuinnSearch
-
Hughes v. RepkoSearch
-
plaintiffs generally should receive a fee based on hours spent on all nonfrivolous claims. See, e.g., Sherkow v. WisconsinSearch
-
Northcross v. BoardSearch
-
Brown v. BathkeSearch
-
unsuccessful claims depends upon the relationship of those hours expended to the success achieved. See, e.g., Copeland v. MarshallSearch
-
Jones v. DiamondSearch
-
Gurule v. WilsonSearch
-
Lamphere v. BrownSearch
-
As we noted in Hanrahan v. HamptonSearch
-
Busche v. BurkeeSearch
-
Sethy v. AlamedaSearch
-
County Water Dist., 602 F.2d 894, 897-898 (CA9 1979) (per curiam). Cf. Taylor v. SterrettSearch
-
The district court also may consider other factors identified in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate. See Copeland v. MarshallSearch
-
was expended. But at least counsel should identify the general subject matter of his time expenditures. See Nadeau v. HelgemoeSearch
-
The District Court expressly relied on Brown v. BathkeSearch
-
ante at 461 U. S. 433 , quoting Nadeau v. HelgemoeSearch
-
of the case permit, the appellate court has a duty to affirm the award promptly. I In Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
Newman v. PiggieSearch
-
the full value that their efforts would receive on the open market in non-civil-rights cases, see generally Copeland v. MarshallSearch
-
Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. A-11. The District Court also addressed each of the factors mentioned in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
No more significant legal error requires today's judgment. The Court notes that the District Court relied on Brown v. BathkeSearch
-
district courts should consider the degree of plaintiffs' success in setting a fee award. See, e.g., Williams v. TransSearch
-
United Handicapped Federation v. AndreSearch
-
Oldham v. EhrlichSearch
-
Cleverly v. WesternSearch
-
fees for work done on nonprevailing claims that are not closely related to the relief obtained. See, e.g., Syvock v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
II In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the Senate Report. In Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial