Citation network
Blum Vs. Stenson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 1984
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. 886 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Blum v. StensonSearch
-
U.S. 886 (1984) Blum v. StensonSearch
-
by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
Stenson v. BlumSearch
-
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in an unpublished oral opinion from the bench. Affirmance order, Stenson v. BlumSearch
-
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
-
Davis v. CountySearch
-
and Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
was represented by private counsel or by a nonprofit legal services organization. The citations to Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
F.R.D. 680 (ND Cal.1974), and Davis v. CountySearch
-
EPD at 5048-5049. We cannot assume that Congress would endorse the standards used in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (CA5 1974), Stanford Daily, Davis, and Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
In Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is one of the 12 factors identified in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
to the District Court any evidence challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged, see Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
s counsel. She therefore waived her right to an evidentiary hearing in the District Court. See City of Detroit v. GrinnellSearch
-
See Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
theory that had prevailed prior to this Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
time had adopted a cost-based approach to calculating fees. Reference to market rate was uniform. See, e.g., Waters v. WisconsinSearch
-
Evans v. SheratonSearch
-
Tillman v. Wheaton-HavenSearch
-
Kerr v. ScreenSearch
-
Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (CA9 1975), cert. denied sub nom. Perkins v. ScreenSearch
-
approved the 12 factors that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had used in calculating a fee award in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
a proper basis on which a district court may award an upward adjustment to an otherwise compensatory fee. See Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
adjustment to compensate for the risk of nonpayment may be justified. In particular, Congress referred to Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Congress as a relevant consideration in setting a reasonable fee. Moreover, Congress explicitly cited Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
Copeland v. MarshallSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Blum v. StensonSearch
-
Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
(ND Cal.1974), and Davis v. CountySearch
-
Stanford Daily, Davis, and Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
the District Court. See City of Detroit v. GrinnellSearch
-
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
Waters v. WisconsinSearch
-
Perkins v. ScreenSearch
-
See Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial