Hensley V. Eckerhart Standard

100 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Application to Adjudge Trinity Indus. v. Trinity Indus., Inc.
  876 F.2d 1485· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the OSHA inspection warrants were validly issued based on probable cause under the administrative plan exception and that the contempt findings and sanctions against Mosher and Trinity were not an abuse of discretion.
• Hernandez v. Hill Country Tel. Coop., Inc.
  849 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII complaint was timely filed, that the defendant waived the 180-day EEOC charge limitation by not raising it below, and that claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 can be pursued concurrently.
• Gilmere v. City OF Atlanta
  931 F.2d 811· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide adequate reasoning for its attorney's fee and cost awards, necessitating a remand for further explanation.
• Rosebrough Monument Co. v. Mem'l Park Cemetery Ass'n
  736 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that certain cemetery rules approved by the district court were overly restrictive and modified them, while affirming the district court's reduction of attorney's fees based on the limited monetary relief obtained by the appellant.
• Bd. OF Regents & The Univ. of S. Fla. v. Winters
  918 So. 2d 313· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-09-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an administrative law judge must consider the results obtained and contingency risk agreements when calculating attorney's fees, even under a statute providing for fees when an agency improperly rejects findings.
• Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  910 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while a district court has discretion to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, it must consider the non-prevailing plaintiff's financial circumstances when determining the amount of the award.
• Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Horrigan
  848 F.2d 321· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that attorney's fees should not be awarded for an unsuccessful claim unless it is inextricably intertwined with a successful claim, and the Administrative Law Judge's allocation should be respected.
• The George Hyman Constr. Co. v. Brooks
  963 F.2d 1532· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Hensley v. Eckerhart standard for awarding attorney fees applies to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, requiring claims to be analyzed for interrelatedness and success level.
• Wheeler v. Towanda Area Sch. Dist.
  950 F.2d 128· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-05 ·cited 6×
  Parents are not entitled to attorney's fees under the EHA because they did not prevail on any significant legal issue and failed to establish a causal connection between their litigation and the hiring of a new interpreter.
• Nydam v. Lennerton
  948 F.2d 808· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the denial of the defendants' motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the damages awarded were not excessive and the attorney fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rivera-Rios
  846 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that attorneys who performed pretrial legal services while known to be potential witnesses did not violate the advocate-witness rule under the applicable Model Rules of Professional Conduct and are eligible for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Davis v. City OF Charleston
  827 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the officers but remanded the attorney's fees awards for both parties for reconsideration.
• Nenh Phetosomphone v. Allison Reed Grp., Inc.
  984 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court should reconsider the district court's award of attorney's fees, as it improperly depreciated the value of the Civil Rights Act by focusing on limited monetary recovery.
• Tang How v. Edward J. Gerrits, Inc.
  756 F. Supp. 1540· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 4×
  The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to award attorney's fees and costs, finding the plaintiff entitled to fees under the contract despite initially electing a quantum meruit theory, and reducing the requested costs based on federal law and reasonableness.
• Johnson v. Hardin Cnty.
  908 F.2d 1280· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish county liability for the prisoner's mistreatment, but the jury could find the individual jail officials deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The attorney's fees award was reversed for reconsiderati
• Fletcher L. Allen v. Allied Plant Maint. Co. OF Tenn., Inc. & Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  881 F.2d 291· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in reducing attorney fees by thirty-five percent based on partial success when the claims shared a common core of facts.
• Krieger v. Gold Bond Bldg. Prods.
  863 F.2d 1091· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the enhancement of attorney's fees was unwarranted, but affirmed the district court's findings of gender discrimination and liability.
• Akbar v. Fairman
  788 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 4×
  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of compensatory damages for procedural due process violations, finding that the underlying disciplinary actions against the inmates were justified. However, the court reversed the district court's award of expenses for the
• Crest St. Cmty. Council, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't OF Transp.
  769 F.2d 1025· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 4×
  Prevailing parties in a Title VI administrative proceeding can recover attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in an independent action, even if no civil suit was filed.
• Bonar v. Ambach
  771 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 4×
  Attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are not available for claims falling within the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) unless a separate due process claim independent of EHA, demonstrating irreparable harm, is established.
• Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines
  726 F.2d 136· 4th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly allocated the burden of proof and its findings of fact are subject to Rule 52(a) review. It affirmed most judgments of discrimination but reversed one individual claim and found another moot.
• Hardman v. The Bd. OF Educ. of the Dollarway
  714 F.2d 823· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a hearing on attorneys' fees is not required when there are no serious factual disputes and the district court adequately explained its reasoning based on relevant factors.
• Granada Invs., Inc. v. DWG Corp.
  962 F.2d 1203· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-30 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of a settlement in a shareholder derivative action, finding it fair and reasonable, and also affirmed the award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff.
• Brother v. Miami Hotel Invs., Ltd.
  341 F. Supp. 2d 1230· S.D. Fla.· 2004-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the Consent Decree mandated payment of attorneys' fees, the reasonableness of the hours expended and the hourly rates must be determined, leading to a reduction in the requested amount due to excessive, redundant, and unnecessary billing practices.
• Bernardi v. Yeutter
  942 F.2d 562· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a multiplier for contingent risk should have been applied to the attorneys' fees award, and that fees for litigating the fee petition were improperly denied. The court also reversed the award of interest on the judgment against the government.
• Janowski v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters Local NO. 710 Pension Fund
  812 F.2d 295· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-09 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiffs are not "prevailing parties" entitled to attorneys' fees because they did not succeed on any substantive issues in the litigation.
• Louis v. Nelson
  624 F. Supp. 836· S.D. Fla.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for their successful litigation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim, but the award would be reduced to account for the government's substa
• Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union
  749 F.2d 1000· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court's approach to calculating attorney's fees was generally sensible, certain reductions were excessive and certain hours should be eliminated entirely, leading to a modified fee award.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Smith
  644 F. Supp. 382· S.D. Fla.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that attorneys who successfully represented Haitian refugees in a due process challenge against the INS are entitled to fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The court determined the appropriate hourly rates based on prev
• Morris Cnty. Tr. FOR Historic Pres. v. Pierce
  730 F.2d 94· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that section 305 of the NHPA authorizes the award of attorneys' fees and costs for services rendered on appeal, and that the court of appeals may make such an award.
• Lobester James Loggins v. Delo
  999 F.2d 364· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that disciplinary action for an inmate's letter containing derogatory remarks about a mail clerk violated the inmate's First Amendment rights because the remarks did not implicate prison security, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding atto
• Mariluz Rosario v. Anthanasios Livaditis
  963 F.2d 1013· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the jury's verdict of zero damages for RICO violations, despite finding liability, was contrary to law, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on damages for those counts. The court affirmed class certification, discovery rulings, and
• Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-06-22
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, awarding attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing defendants, finding that intertwined claims justified awarding joint fees.
• Nunez v. City of Pompano Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-10-25
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to attorneys' fees for defending against the Title VII claims, but not for administrative or state law proceedings, and recommended an award of $7,900.00.
• Parks v. BRE/Sanibel Beach Owner, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-08
  The court held that while the plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees, costs, and expenses as a prevailing party under the ADA, the requested amounts must be reduced based on the reasonable hourly rates and the number of hours reasonably expended.
• Pena v. Rdi, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-04-16
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, awarding $3,979.50 after reducing the requested amount for work outside the scope of the prior order.
• Salvador v. Brico, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-04-15
  The court held that while the hourly rate was reasonable, the total hours billed were excessive and included clerical work, thus reducing the awarded attorney's fees.
• Rodriguez v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-25
  The court denied defendants' request for reconsideration of its prior order awarding attorney's fees and granted plaintiffs' application for fees.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chalfont & Assocs. Grp., Inc
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-24
  The Court awarded $4,175 in attorney's fees, reducing the requested amount based on excessive hours and an unreasonable hourly rate.
• Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-30
  Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA because the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified, and the court grants the petition except for clerical paralegal fees.
• Goos v. Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors
  997 F.2d 1565· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-23
  The dissent argues the majority's application of Hensley v. Eckerhart creates an unnecessarily rigid rule for attorneys' fees, increasing litigation and district court burdens.
• Krichinsky v. Knox Cnty. Schs.
  963 F.2d 847· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-29
  The Sixth Circuit held that the Krichinskys were prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees under the IDEA because they succeeded on significant issues of increased therapy, even though they did not achieve their primary goal of residential placement.
• Fleming v. Ayers & Assocs.
  948 F.2d 993· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-01
  The court held that discrimination based on health insurance costs for an employee's dependent children is not sex discrimination under Title VII, but may be cognizable under ERISA. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of reinstatement and limited back pay.
• W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey
  898 F.2d 357· 3d Cir.· 1990-03-12
  The court held that attorneys' fees are to be awarded based on the degree of success achieved, disallowing fees for distinct and unsuccessful claims while allowing them for related unsuccessful claims that contribute to the overall relief obtained.
• Parthapratim Bhattacharya v. Hal E. Copple, M.D.
  898 F.2d 766· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-12
  The court held that the attorneys' fee determination was an appealable order and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees based on an hourly rate rather than the contingent fee agreement.
• Green v. Bowen
  877 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-09
  The court held that a social security claimant is a prevailing party under the EAJA when benefits are awarded, even if not through a judicial review of a final agency determination. The court reversed the denial of fees and remanded for a determination of whether the government's
• Uviedo v. Steves Sash & Door Co.
  760 F.2d 87· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-13