Legal Opinion · Dissent

Joan Eddy, of the Estate of James Peter Eddy v. Colonial Life Insurance Company of America

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided September 12, 1995No. 94-7043Published

1DissentRandolph, Circuit Judge

Without specifying any standards, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) vests “discretion” in the district courts to award attorney’s fees in ERISA cases: “the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.” To this exceedingly general provision, a provision like many other federal fee-shifting statutes, my colleagues now attach the five-factor “test” composed in Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir.1980). The Hummell test, we are told, is “exacting” but “neither exclusive nor quantitative” (maj. op. at 203, 206), which means there may…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Hummell v. S. E. Rykoff & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  3. Weyerhaeuser Company v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, No. 76-1674Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1978
  4. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,379 Marian W. Short v. Belleville Shoe Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
  5. Joan Eddy, of the Estate of James Peter Eddy v. Colonial Life Insurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API