Citation network
Missouri Vs. Jenkins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1989
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 274 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
-
U.S. 274 (1989) Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
-
has no application to an award of attorney's fees, ancillary to a grant of prospective relief, against a State, Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
million. See Jenkins v. MissouriSearch
-
Jenkins v. MissouriSearch
-
compensate for delay in payment. This question requires us to examine the intersection of two of our precedents, Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
U. S. 678 (1978), and Library of Congress v. ShawSearch
-
In Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Id. at 437 U. S. 695 -696, citing Fairmont Creamery Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
Welch v. TexasSearch
-
Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U. S. 468 (1987). See also Dellmuth v. MuthSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. UnionSearch
-
set aside the States' immunity from retroactive damages, 437 U.S. at 437 U. S. 693 , citing Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
did not plainly abrogate the States' immunity, citing Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
and Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Eleventh Amendment did not apply to an award of attorney's fees ancillary to a grant of prospective relief. See Maine v. ThiboutotSearch
-
and we reaffirm it today. Missouri's other line of argument is based on our decision in Library of Congress v. ShawSearch
-
Page 491 U. S. 281 The answer to this contention is already clear from what we have said about Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
In Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
current rates or by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPASearch
-
Louisville Black Police Officers Organization, Inc. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
s fees awarded under this statute are to be based on market rates for the services rendered. See, e.g., Blanchard v. BergeronSearch
-
Riverside v. RiveraSearch
-
We reaffirm our holding in Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
In Blum v. StensonSearch
-
Ramos v. LammSearch
-
Cameo Convalescent Center, Inc. v. SennSearch
-
Court of Appeals on this point, 838 F.2d at 265-266, is in conflict with the resolution of the same question in Rogers v. OkinSearch
-
F.2d 22, 26-28 (CA1 1987), cert. denied sub nom. Commissioner, Massachusetts Dept. of Mental Health v. RogersSearch
-
and our cases construing it. Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
when a litigant becomes a prevailing party on one issue in the course of the litigation. Texas State Teachers Assn. v. GarlandSearch
-
on this issue. Most permit separate billing of paralegal time. See, e.g., Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. HodelSearch
-
Jacoos v. MancusoSearch
-
Spanish Action Committee of Chicago v. ChicagoSearch
-
Richardson v. ByrdSearch
-
F.2d 1016, 1023 (CA5), cert. denied sub nom. Dallas County Commissioners Court v. RichardsonSearch
-
U.S. 1009 (1983). See also Riverside v. RiveraSearch
-
recoverable only at cost to the attorney. See, e.g., Northcross v. BoardSearch
-
Thornberry v. DeltaSearch
-
Court of Appeals has refused to permit any recovery of paralegal expense apart from the attorney's hourly fee. Abrams v. BaylorSearch
-
secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal rate, regardless of who performs them. What the court in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial