Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Venegas Vs. Mitchell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 18, 1990

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

30 entries 2 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Blum Vs. Stenson US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1984
  2. Blanchard Vs. Bergeron US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1989
  3. U.S. 82 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Venegas v. Mitchell
    Search
  4. U.S. 82 (1990) Venegas v. Mitchell
    Search
  5. eligible for fees, has recognized that it is the party's right to waive, settle, or negotiate that eligibility, Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  6. and has implicitly accepted that statutory fee awards can coexist with private fee arrangements, cf. Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  7. a waiver of their causes of action with their adversaries than a fee with their own attorneys. The fact that Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  8. contingent fee model to the lodestar model of hours reasonably expended compensated at reasonable rates. See Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  9. Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  10. Riverside v. Rivera
    Search
  11. from the lodestar figure based on the contingency of nonrecovery in this particular litigation. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  12. other way. Section 1988 makes the prevailing party eligible for a discretionary award of attorney's fees. Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  13. litigation, either because they were fortunate enough to be able to retain counsel on a fee-paying basis, Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  14. U. S. 94 -95, or because they were represented free of charge by nonprofit legal aid organizations, Blum v. Stenson
    Search
  15. is concerned, it is the party's right to waive, settle, or negotiate that eligibility. See Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  16. Newton v. Rumery
    Search
  17. of being more free to negotiate with their adversaries than with their own attorneys. Relying heavily on Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  18. award belongs to the attorney, rather than the plaintiff. See Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  19. Sullivan v. Crown
    Search
  20. Wilmington v. J.L
    Search
  21. Venegas v. Skaggs
    Search
  22. award places a ceiling on an attorney's permissible recovery under a contingent fee agreement. Cooper v. Singer
    Search
  23. Venegas v. Wagner
    Search
  24. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the judgment. Venegas v. Wagner
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Venegas v. Mitchell
    Search
  26. Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  27. See Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  28. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  29. See Evans v. Jeff
    Search
  30. Cooper v. Singer
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial