Legal Opinion
Rose v. Heintz
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided September 28, 1987No. H-82-555 (AHN)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NEVAS, District Judge.
Absent objection and in accordance with an agreement between the parties (see letter to court dated September 4, 1987), the Magistrate’s recommended ruling is approved. So ordered.
MAGISTRATE’S OPINION
THOMAS P. SMITH, United States Magistrate.
The court heard oral argument on the matter of attorney fees June 29, 1987. Counsel for plaintiffs seek compensation for work they did on the initial litigation in 1982, their 1985 petition for fees before the District Court, and their 1986 appeal to the Second Circuit of the District Court’s denial of the petition. 1 They ask…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Martha Johnson and Delores J. Ceballos, Etc. v. University College of the University of Alabama in Birmingham George W. Campbell, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McInnis v. Town of WestonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
- Davis v. LittleDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1988
- Prologis Six Rivers Ltd. v. Gould (In Re Gould)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 2007