Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Burlington Vs. Dague

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1992

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

35 entries 5 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. Blum Vs. Stenson US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1984
  2. Venegas Vs. Mitchell US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1990
  3. Hensley Vs. Eckerhart US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  4. Blanchard Vs. Bergeron US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1989
  5. Flight Attendants Vs. Zipes US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1989
  6. U.S. 557 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus City of Burlington V. Dague
    Search
  7. lodestar amount to reflect the fact that a party's attorneys were retained on a contingent-fee basis. In Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  8. Court's general rejection of the contingent-fee model in favor of the lodestar model, see, e. g., Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  9. are involved, the question is essentially identical to the one we addressed, but did not resolve, in Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  10. Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  11. App. to Pet. for Cert. 131-132 (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Eastman
    Search
  12. Kodak Co., 834 F.2d 295 , 298 (CA2 1987), in turn quoting Lewis v. Coughlin
    Search
  13. fee applies uniformly to all of them. Flight Attendants v. Zipes
    Search
  14. as too risky (i. e., too unlikely to succeed), these two propositions, as a practical matter, collide. See King v. Palmer
    Search
  15. U. S. App. D. C. 362, 371, 950 F.2d 771 , 780 (1991) (en bane), cert. pending sub nom. King v. Ridley
    Search
  16. which in turn is based on our decrees. See King v. Palmer
    Search
  17. vacated, 292 U. S. App. D. C. 362, 950 F.2d 771 (1991), cert. pending sub nom. King v. Ridley
    Search
  18. prevailing) parties bars a prevailing plaintiff from recovering fees relating to claims on which he lost, Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  19. For example, in Blanchard v. Bergeron
    Search
  20. offer attorneys a share of a recovery sufficient to justify a standard contingent-fee arrangement. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  21. the standard fee-shifting language used elsewhere to bar enhancement. Cf. West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
    Search
  22. see also Venegas v. Mitchell
    Search
  23. to an award. In prior cases the Court has been careful to distinguish between these two issues. See, e. g., Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  24. Ante, at 565-566 (footnote omitted), quoting Venegas v. Mitchell
    Search
  25. a reasonable incentive to an attorney contemplating whether or not to take a case in the first place. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  26. App. to Pet. for Cert. 132-133. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of its holding in Friends of the Earth v. Eastman
    Search
  27. Syllabus City of Burlington V. Dague
    Search
  28. In Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  29. Friends of the Earth v. Eastman
    Search
  30. Lewis v. Coughlin
    Search
  31. See King v. Palmer
    Search
  32. King v. Ridley
    Search
  33. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  34. Cf. West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
    Search
  35. Missouri v. Jenkins
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial