Citation network
Gisbrecht Vs. Barnhart
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 2002
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. 789 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Gisbrecht Et Al. V. BarnhartSearch
-
See Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
g) implicitly authorized such fees. See Bowen v. GalbreathSearch
-
U. S. 74 , 75-76 (1988) (citing Celebrezze v. SparksSearch
-
citing Folsom v. McDonaldSearch
-
from Sandine's. Following Circuit precedent, see Allen v. ShalalaSearch
-
CA9 1995), the District Court in each case declined to give effect to the attorney-client fee agreement. Gisbrecht v. ApfelSearch
-
Miller v. ApfelSearch
-
Sandine v. ApfelSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consolidated the cases 7 and affirmed the District Court's fee dispositions. Gisbrecht v. ApfelSearch
-
Id., at 1198 (quoting Kerr v. ScreenSearch
-
b). For convenience, we nonetheless refer to claimants as petitioners. See Hopkins v. CohenSearch
-
she plays a part in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants. See, e. g., Lewis v. SecretarySearch
-
of Health and Human Servs., 707 F.2d 246 , 248 (CA61983). 7 A fourth case, Anderson v. ApfelSearch
-
F. 3d, at 1199 (quoting Widrig v. ApfelSearch
-
b). Compare Coup v. HecklerSearch
-
Craig v. SecretarySearch
-
Brown v. SullivanSearch
-
Cotter v. BowenSearch
-
Hubbard v. ShalalaSearch
-
and Kay v. ApfelSearch
-
F.3d 1322 (CAll 1999) (all following, in accord with the Ninth Circuit, a lodestar method), with Wells v. SullivanSearch
-
Rodriguez v. BowenSearch
-
and McGuire v. SullivanSearch
-
F. 2d, at 69-70 (citing Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Highway Express, Inc., 488 9 Cf. Ramos Colon v. SecretarySearch
-
or the contingent-fee method, recognized by this Court in Stanton v. EmbreySearch
-
ed.), courts should consider not only the number of hours devoted to a case but also 11 other factors. Johnson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
The lodestar method did not gain a firm foothold until the mid-1970's, see Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Philadelphia v. AmericanSearch
-
F.2d 102 (1976), and achieved dominance in the federal courts only after this Court's decisions in Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
U. S. 424 (1983), Blum v. StensonSearch
-
U. S. 886 (1984), and Pennsylvania v. DelawareSearch
-
attorney for the prevailing party from gaining additional fees, pursuant to contract, from his own client. See Venegas v. MitchellSearch
-
between the contracting parties, Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. ShuteSearch
-
U. S. 585 , 598 (1991) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). See also Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. AdamsSearch
-
Lewis v. SecretarySearch
-
to the fair value of the work actually performed, which we have held is best reflected by the lodestar.1 See Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
in the law courts was thought to be less of a sporting enterprise, contingent fees were unlawful. See, e. g., Butler v. LegroSearch
-
the lodestar method to other fee statutes enacted before the method was developed. See, e. g., Bur lington v. DagueSearch
-
Syllabus Gisbrecht Et Al. V. BarnhartSearch
-
See Bowen v. GalbreathSearch
-
Celebrezze v. SparksSearch
-
Folsom v. McDonaldSearch
-
Allen v. ShalalaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial