Citation network
Blanchard Vs. Bergeron
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 21, 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. 87 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Blanchard v. BergeronSearch
-
U.S. 87 (1989) Blanchard v. BergeronSearch
-
recognizing that other Circuits had different views, the court held that it was bound by its prior decision in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976) (citing Davis v. CountySearch
-
and Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
we have turned our attention to Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
a case decided before the enactment of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976. As we stated in Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
F.2d at 718 (quoting Clark v. AmericanSearch
-
Those cases clarify that the fee arrangement is but a single factor, and not determinative. In Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
a contingent fee arrangement to be a factor, but not dispositive, in the calculation of a fee award. In Davis v. CountySearch
-
a fee award to counsel in a public interest firm which otherwise would have been entitled to no fee. Finally, in Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
All of this is consistent with and reflects our decisions in cases involving court-awarded attorney's fees. Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Riverside v. RiveraSearch
-
Newman v. PiggieSearch
-
The District Court referred to the guidelines announced by this Court in Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
Cooper v. SingerSearch
-
Sanchez v. SchwartzSearch
-
See Pharr v. HousingSearch
-
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
-
opinion of the Court except that portion which rests upon detailed analysis of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (CA5 1974), and the District Court decisions in Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
and Davis v. CountySearch
-
excessive preoccupation with them -- and with the 12-factor Johnson analysis in particular. See, e.g., Blum v. StensonSearch
-
expansion is all the more puzzling because I had thought that, in the first Delaware Valley case, Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
S. at 478 U. S. 563 -565. Indeed, the plurality opinion in the second Delaware Valley case, Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
exclusively by way of refuting arguments made in reliance upon them in JUSTICE BRENNAN's separate opinion in Blum v. StensonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Blanchard v. BergeronSearch
-
Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Clark v. AmericanSearch
-
In Stanford Daily v. ZurcherSearch
-
In Davis v. CountySearch
-
Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial