Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Evans Vs. Jeff D.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 21, 1986

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

70 entries 4 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Hensley Vs. Eckerhart US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  2. Blum Vs. Stenson US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1984
  3. Brooklyn Savings Bank Vs. O'Neil US Supreme Court · Apr 09, 1945
  4. Maher Vs. Gagne US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1980
  5. Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  6. D. - 475 U.S. 717 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  7. D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986) Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  8. In Maher v. Gagne
    Search
  9. by reducing the attractiveness of settlement. Of particular relevance in this regard is our recent decision in Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  10. U.S. at 473 U. S. 10 . To promote both settlement and civil rights, we implicitly acknowledged in Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  11. entire civil rights action, including any liability for fees and costs. In approving the package offer in Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  12. Id. at 473 U. S. 6 -7. See White v. New
    Search
  13. Brief for Defendants in Support of Approval of Compromise in Jeff D. v. Evans
    Search
  14. a determination of costs, which ordinarily involve smaller outlays and are more susceptible of calculation, see Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  15. for determining attorney's fees, Page 475 U. S. 736 Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  16. of Idaho Legal Aid. Brief for Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Consideration of Costs and Attorney Fees in Jeff D. v. Evans
    Search
  17. As we held in Maher v. Gagne
    Search
  18. award would benefit a legal services corporation justify a refusal to make an award. See New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey
    Search
  19. That precedent, Mendoza v. United
    Search
  20. States, 623 F.2d 1338 (CA9 1980), like the Third Circuit decision in Prandini v. National
    Search
  21. to prevent attorneys from trading relief benefiting the class for a more generous fee for themselves. See Mendoza v. United
    Search
  22. Prandini v. National
    Search
  23. the decision of the Ninth Circuit below is in accord with the rule prevailing in the Third Circuit, see Prandini v. National
    Search
  24. El Club Del Barrio, Inc. v. United
    Search
  25. plaintiffs are free to waive fee awards as part of an overall settlement, at least in some circumstances, see Moore v. National
    Search
  26. Lazar v. Pierce
    Search
  27. Gram v. Bank
    Search
  28. Chicano Police Officer's Assn. v. Stover
    Search
  29. See Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler
    Search
  30. United States v. United
    Search
  31. Railway Employees v. Wright
    Search
  32. United States v. Swift
    Search
  33. Cf. Firefighters v. Stotts
    Search
  34. accords with the view held by the majority of the Courts of Appeals. See, e.g., Jonas v. Stack
    Search
  35. Brown v. General
    Search
  36. Cooper v. Singer
    Search
  37. White v. New
    Search
  38. rev'd on other grounds, 455 U. S. 445 (1982). But cf. James v. Home
    Search
  39. Construction Co. of Mobil Inc., 689 F.2d 1357, 1358-1359 (CA11 1982) (disagreeing with Smith v. South
    Search
  40. useful to plaintiffs as well as defendants. In her opinion concurring in the judgment in Moore v. National
    Search
  41. Rivera v. Riverside
    Search
  42. Cunningham v. City
    Search
  43. Copeland v. Marshall
    Search
  44. Skoda v. Fontani
    Search
  45. recovery). Cf. Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  46. Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin
    Search
  47. in fees and expenses for successful challenge to law zoning liquor establishments in Larkin v. Grendel's
    Search
  48. Id. at 465 U. S. 902 , n.19. See Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  49. simultaneous negotiation in one Circuit by means of tacit agreements of this kind. See El Club Del Barrio, Inc. v. United
    Search
  50. We believe, however, that, as a practical matter, the likelihood of this circumstance arising is remote. See Moore v. National
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial