Legal Opinion

Herrman v. LifeMap Assurance Company

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided October 29, 2020No. 3:17-cv-01336Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION DEBRA HERRMANN, Plaintiff, No. 3:17-cv-01336-MO v. OPINION AND ORDER LIFEMAP ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., Before me is Plaintiff Debra Herrman’s Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF 28]. This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit “with instructions to reconsider Herrman’s fee motion under the correct legal standard.” Ninth Cir. Remand Mem. [ECF 51] at 1—2. Previously, I considered the five Hummell' factors and denied Ms. Herrman’s fee motion. In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit held that in addition…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Moreno v. City of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  3. Gates v. DeukmejianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  4. Julie Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  5. Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007

8 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