Legal Opinion
In the Matter Of: Synthroid Marketing Litigation
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided April 15, 2003No. 02-2398, 02-2519PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
A prior appeal in this nationwide class action ended with two principal conclusions: first, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement; second, the court erred in capping attorneys’ fees at 10% of any “megafund” recovery. In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir.2001). A court must give counsel the market rate for legal services, we held. Although the market rate, as a percentage of recovery, likely falls as the stakes increase, whether it exceeds 10% for recoveries above $100 million must be answered by reference…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Devlin v. ScardellettiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- In the Matter Of: Synthroid Marketing LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Anita Kirchoff and William Kirchoff v. Michael FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- William T. Divane Jr. v. Krull Electric Co., and John J. Curry Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Reena Frailich v. Sandra DisnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- BASF AG v. Great American Assurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- Daniel Jt Taubenfeld and Raizel Taubenfeld v. Aon Corp., Appeal Of: Hannah FeldmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
- In Re Trans Union Corp. Privacy LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
- Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2006
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.