Citation network
MartIn Vs. Hadix
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1999
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
-
U.S. 343 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Martin, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, Et Al. V. HadixSearch
-
on whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's 344 Syllabus temporal reach. Landgraf v. USISearch
-
does not apply to pending cases. This argument is based on an analogy to Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
whether the statute operates retroactively, as does the PLRA. Petitioners also misplace their reliance on Bradley v. SchoolSearch
-
H. Sorrell of Vermont, Mark L. Earley of Virginia, Christine Q Gregoire of Washington, and Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Glover v. John-Search
-
detailing the specific actions to be undertaken by the defendants to remedy the constitutional violations. Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
ed. and Supp. III). Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
attorney's fees for post judgment monitoring of the defendants' compliance with the court's remedial decrees. Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees, at the prevailing market rate, for post judgment monitoring. Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
per hour. See Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
assure the constitutionality''' of the conditions of confinement at SPSM-CC. Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
to the Hadix plaintiffs for postjudgment monitoring of the defendants' compliance with the consent decree. Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
per hour for lead counsel. See Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
attorney's fees for services performed in these cases prior to the effective 351 date of the Act. Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
ED Mich., May 30, 1996), App. 91a. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this interpretation of the PLRA on appeal. Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
but concluded that the PLRA fee cap does limit fees for services performed after the effective date. Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
consolidated the appeals from these orders, and, as relevant here, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
PLRA, even when those fees compensate attorneys for work performed prior to the enactment of the PLRA. Alexander S. v. BoydSearch
-
Madrid v. GomezSearch
-
F.3d 1030 (CA9 1998). See also Blissett v. CaseySearch
-
Inmates of D. C. Jail v. JacksonSearch
-
See, e. g., Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Landgraf v. USISearch
-
retroactivity, we presume that the statute does not apply to that conduct. Ibid. See also Hughes Aircraft Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
argument is based on an analogy to our decision in Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
Ibid. See also Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
we must ask whether the statute operates retroactively. Moreover, petitioners' reliance on our decision in Bradley v. SchoolSearch
-
that, in absence of contrary indication, a statute will not be construed to have retroactive application, see Landgraf v. USISearch
-
than adjudicate past. It was therefore no less subject to revision by statute than is an injunction. Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
d) governs post-April 26, 1996, fee awards in two lawsuits commenced before that date. In Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
order and retained jurisdiction over the case pending defendants' substantial compliance with that order. See Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
Under a 1985 ruling governing fee awards, plaintiffs' counsel applied for fees and costs twice yearly. See Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
F.3d 246 , 248 (CA6 1998). In Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
limitation to all work performed thereafter, see id., at 31a, 41a. Relying on its recent decision in Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
Ibid. II In Landgraf v. USISearch
-
Jensen v. ClarkeSearch
-
Instead of the court-approved 1 Section 803(d) is thus unlike the unenacted provision discussed in Landgraf v. USISearch
-
injustice of interpreting a statute to reduce the level of compensation for work already performed. See United States v. HethSearch
-
Syllabus Martin, Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, Et Al. V. HadixSearch
-
Bradley v. SchoolSearch
-
of the Equal Protection Clause, Glover v. John-Search
-
and Supp. III). Glover v. JohnsonSearch
-
See Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
SPSM-CC. Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
of the Act. Glover v. JohnsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial