Legal Opinion
Dubose v. Pierce
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided February 7, 1984No. Civ. H-75-303, H-75-345, H-75-346, H-76-26, N-76-44, H-76-89, H-76-160 and N-76-109PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
BLUMENFELD, Senior District Judge.
Introduction
In recent years, over 100 congressional enactments have provided for the awarding of attorneys’ fees to prevailing litigants. Applicants have responded to this potential source of funds by pursuing fee requests with such tenacity and thoroughness that the Supreme Court has recently been led to warn, “A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 70 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (applying 42 U.S.C. § 1988). One beneficial result of the…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Boudin v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Nichols ex rel. Johnston v. PierceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Boudin v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Dubose v. PierceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Underwood v. PierceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.