Lodestar Method

957 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 111 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Norman v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Montgomery
  836 F.2d 1292· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 730×
  The court held that a subsequent order terminating litigation cures a premature notice of appeal from an order regarding attorney's fees, and that the lodestar approach, calculated by reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, is the presumptive method for determini
• Rosen v. Rosen
  696 So. 2d 697· Fla.· 1997-04-24 ·cited 626×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved conflicting district court decisions regarding attorney's fees and alimony modification in a long-running family law case. The Court held that trial courts may consider all circumstances surrounding a family law suit (not just financial resource
• Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom
  555 So. 2d 828· Fla.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 523×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that contingency fee multipliers are not mandatory when determining attorney's fees under fee-shifting statutes, reversing the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision that multipliers must be applied. The Court clarified that while contingency arr
• Copeland v. Marshall
  641 F.2d 880· D.C. Cir.· 1979-10-09 ·cited 276×
  The dissenting judges argue that the majority's market value approach to calculating attorney's fees in Title VII cases against the government is unworkable and leads to excessive awards. They propose a cost-plus reasonable profit model instead.
• Jean v. Nelson
  863 F.2d 759· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 259×
  The court held that cost-of-living adjustments for fees prior to 1985, fees for specialized knowledge like immigration law, and the government's litigious position do not justify exceeding the $75 statutory cap under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.
  996 F.2d 1144· 11th Cir.· 1993-08-04 ·cited 234×
  The Resolution Trust Corporation sought attorney fees after successfully collecting on two loans from Hallmark Builders and its president Ronald Nutt. Although a magistrate found the lodestar components (hours and hourly rates) reasonable and determined no legal basis existed for
• Lindy Bros. Builders v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
  540 F.2d 102· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-02 ·cited 223×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding fees for intervention work and in doubling hourly rates for contingency and quality without proper analysis, contrary to prior precedent.
• Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc.
  981 F.3d 934· 11th Cir.· 2020-11-25 ·cited 204×
  The Court held that an appeal of a final judgment is untimely if not filed within 30 days, even in FLSA cases, and that Rule 68 applies to FLSA actions, allowing a defendant to recover post-offer costs if the plaintiff obtains a less favorable judgment.
• Loranger v. Merrett Stierheim
  10 F.3d 776· 11th Cir.· 1994-01-04 ·cited 203×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the recusal motion, finding that the alleged bias stemmed from judicial rulings rather than an extra-judicial source. However, the court vacated the attorney's fee award and remanded for further proceedings, requiring t
• Bonetti v. Embarq Mgmt. Co.
  715 F. Supp. 2d 1222· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-04 ·cited 188×
  The Court held that it should not independently scrutinize the reasonableness of attorneys' fees in FLSA settlements unless there is objective evidence that the plaintiff's recovery was adversely affected by the fee amount.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Concerned Veterans v. Secretary OF Defense
  675 F.2d 1319· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 119×
  The court clarifies that parties opposing fee applications must specifically articulate their objections and follow proper procedures for discovery and hearings, rather than making broad, unsupported challenges.
• Action ON Smoking AND Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  724 F.2d 211· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 117×
  The court held that while ASH is entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA, the requested amounts must be reduced due to inadequate documentation, excessive hours, and rates exceeding the statutory cap, with a limited upward adjustment for delay and quality of representation.
• Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  863 So. 2d 210· Fla.· 2003-10-02 ·cited 103×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that contingency risk multipliers cannot be applied to attorney fees awarded under section 768.79 (the offer of judgment statute) and rule 1.442. The Court resolved a conflict among district courts by adopting a strict construction of the statute an
• Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., Inc.
  734 So. 2d 403· Fla.· 1999-05-20 ·cited 101×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court may consider applying a contingency risk multiplier to court-awarded attorney's fees based on a contractual provision, even where no statute authorizes the fee award, if evidence supports the need. The Court answered a certified q
• Dees v. Hydradry, Inc.
  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40900· M.D. Fla.· 2010-04-19 ·cited 99×
  A private agreement to compromise an FLSA claim is unenforceable unless supervised by the Department of Labor or approved by a district court after scrutinizing it for fairness and reasonableness.
• Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  746 F.2d 4· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 98×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in its interpretation of attorney fee statutes by tying reasonable hourly rates too closely to historical billing rates and by misapplying the standard for contingency multipliers.
• In re The Home Depot Inc. v. Home Depot
  931 F.3d 1065· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-25 ·cited 89×
  Banks that issued compromised payment cards from a massive 2014 Home Depot data breach sued Home Depot for their losses, and the parties settled with Home Depot agreeing to pay a $25 million settlement fund to the class plus separately-negotiated attorney's fees. The Eleventh Cir
• Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  624 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-20 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of injury and damages, but reversed the attorneys' fee award due to the district court's failure to adequately articulate its reasoning.
• Prandini v. Nat'l TEA Co. & the Amalgamated Food Emps. Union Local 590. Appeal of Jean H. Prandini
  585 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 87×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment regarding attorney's fees, as the trial judge did not err in applying the Lindy II rule for fee calculations.
• Popham v. City OF Kennesaw
  820 F.2d 1570· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court properly interpreted the jury's inconsistent answers to special interrogatories, finding that the jury did not intend for qualified immunity to apply to the excessive force claim, and thus upheld the judgment for the plaintiff. The court als
• Hughes v. Repko
  578 F.2d 483· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 85×
  The court held that once the lodestar fee is determined, the district court has discretion to adjust the final award based on the limited benefits produced by the litigation.
• Wildman v. Lerner Stores Corp.
  771 F.2d 605· 1st Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the district court properly denied judgment n.o.v. and did not abuse its discretion in trying federal and Puerto Rico claims together, but remanded for redetermination of attorney's fees multiplier based on contingency risk.
• In re Est. OF Lester Platt
  586 So. 2d 328· Fla.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 82×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that reasonable compensation for attorneys and personal representatives in probate estates under Fla. Stat. § 733.617 cannot be computed solely on a percentage of estate value. The court rejected fixed-percentage fee schedules and established that t
• NEW York State Ass'n FOR Retarded Child., Inc. v. Carey
  711 F.2d 1136· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-15 ·cited 82×
  The concurring judge agrees with the majority opinion but expresses reservations about the hourly rate and bonus factor awarded to counsel.
• Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Servs., Inc.
  203 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2002-05-13 ·cited 81×
  The court awarded $60,000 in attorneys' fees against the plaintiff and $60,000 against her attorney, totaling $120,000, and $6,261.77 in costs, considering the lodestar calculation, objections, and financial limitations of the plaintiff and her attorney.
• Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  684 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing attorneys' fees by 25% but erred in allowing a similar reduction for costs and expenses, which must be itemized and verified.
• Alta Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc.
  670 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 80×
  The court held that attorneys' fees can be awarded for efforts to persuade the government to debar a defendant from federal contracts if those efforts contribute to the settlement of a Title VII action, and that hourly rates should not be limited to local rates if specialized out
• Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp.
  829 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 79×
  The court held that lost pension benefits can be awarded as front pay under the ADEA, but a state law wrongful discharge claim for age discrimination is not recognized in New Jersey when statutory remedies exist. Attorney's fees were remanded for recalculation of the risk multipl
• Institutionalized Juveniles in Pennsylvania institutions for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded v. Secretary OF Public Welfare
  758 F.2d 897· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 75×
  The court vacated the district court's fee award and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the district court's determination of prevailing party status and calculation of fees required reconsideration.
• Wehr v. The Burroughs Corp.
  619 F.2d 276· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the jury charge defining 'willful violation' under the ADEA as 'intentionally, deliberately and knowingly' was not reversible error, as it imposed a higher burden than required. The court also modified the attorneys' fees and costs award.
• City OF Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.
  560 F.2d 1093· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-30 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court's fee award was excessive and not adequately justified, particularly the significant increases above the lodestar amount for settlement administration and other work, and that fees for preparing the fee application itself are not recoverable
• Searcy v. Paige N. Poletz
  652 So. 2d 366· Fla.· 1995-03-16 ·cited 69×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among appellate courts regarding how to calculate quantum meruit recovery for an attorney discharged without cause before case completion. The Court held that the Rowe "lodestar" method, designed for fee-shifting awards to non-clients
• Cunningham v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  869 F.2d 427· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-11 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly reducing the attorney fee award based on factors already subsumed in the lodestar calculation and by misapplying Rule 11 sanctions to post-signing conduct.
• Lane v. Head
  566 So. 2d 508· Fla.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 65×·via Lodestar Fee Calculation
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts may apply multipliers to enhance attorney's fees in partial contingency-fee arrangements, but the enhancement must be reduced proportionally to the guaranteed portion of the fee. The court reversed the Fourth District's blanket pro
• Furtado v. Bishop
  635 F.2d 915· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-11 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a rigid percentage-of-recovery ceiling on attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is impermissible, as it undermines the statute's goal of encouraging civil rights litigation.
• Kirchoff v. Flynn
  786 F.2d 320· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 61×
  The dissenting judge argues that the district court's fee award calculation, based on a contingent fee contract reflecting market value, was reasonable and that the majority failed to provide adequate guidance.
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  672 F.2d 42· D.C. Cir.· 1982-02-05 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is entitled to attorneys' fees under TSCA, and that the lodestar calculation requires careful scrutiny of hours and rates, with adjustments considered based on specific factors.
• Miller v. First Am. Bank & Tr.
  607 So. 2d 483· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-11-02 ·cited 59×
  The appellees (First American Bank and Trust) sued to foreclose a mortgage and obtained summary judgment. They then sought and received attorney's fees of $242,550.15 for over 1,600 billable hours by twenty attorneys and staff from four law firms, despite the case being straightf
• McGUIRE v. Marshall
  873 F.2d 974· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 58×
  The court held that attorney fees awarded under contingency agreements in Social Security cases should be reviewed for reasonableness, giving deference to the agreement but allowing for reductions if the fee constitutes a windfall or is disproportionate to services rendered.
• Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Boleslaus J. Chmielewski
  573 So. 2d 876· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-12-06 ·cited 57×·via Lodestar Amount
  Orlando Regional Medical Center appealed a jury verdict finding it 77% liable for medical malpractice in a case involving a puncture wound to a patient's foot where a foreign object was not discovered. The court affirmed the liability finding under apparent agency doctrine but re
• Ustrak v. Fairman
  851 F.2d 983· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that attorney's fees awarded in civil rights cases can exceed damages, and that the appellate court can directly adjust fee awards to avoid further litigation.
• Chalmers v. City OF LOS Angeles
  796 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 56×
  The court vacated the district court's attorney's fee award due to lack of specificity and granted in part the motion for attorney's fees on appeal, reducing the requested amount.
• Lattimore v. Oman Constr.
  868 F.2d 437· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees, including enhancement, because the appellant waived the issue of entitlement and the findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
• Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't OF Just.
  745 F.2d 1476· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment regarding the adequacy of the Department's search and the propriety of claimed exemptions, but vacated the award of attorney fees for reconsideration.
• Miami Child's. Hosp. v. Ulises Tamayo
  529 So. 2d 667· Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the lodestar principles set forth in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, including the limitation that a court-awarded fee not exceed the fee set by a contingency agreement, apply to attorney's fee awards under section 768.56, Florida Statutes, regard
• Bancroft Dudley Hall v. Ochs
  817 F.2d 920· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff on the false imprisonment claim, denied qualified immunity for the imprisonment, and affirmed most damages awards, but reversed the attorneys' fees multiplier.
• In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. Appeal of Walter E. Riordan, P.A.
  751 F.2d 562· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the equitable fund doctrine does not universally preclude using an initial settlement fund to finance further litigation, provided there is a prior agreement or judicial approval, and that a partial settlement's impact on a contingency multiplier should consid
• United States v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n
  847 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court's method of calculating attorney fees, focusing on specific tasks and reasonable time rather than solely on claimed hours, was permissible and not an abuse of discretion, and that the appeal was timely filed.
• Walters v. City OF Atlanta
  803 F.2d 1135· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed the finding of illegal discrimination and most damages, but vacated punitive damages against some officials and reduced back pay. The court also affirmed the denial of punitive damages against the City and the directed verdict on the Section 1983 claim.
• Hall v. Bolger
  768 F.2d 1148· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while an award of interest on attorney fees against the USPS is permissible under 39 U.S.C. § 401(1), the district court must recalculate the attorney fees in light of recent Supreme Court precedent and correct the method of interest compounding.