Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Harris v. Rubino

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 2018No. 2018-1129Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKennedy, J.

*1073{¶ 15} I agree with the majority's statement that in the future, block billing, that is, billing for a block of time in which several separate tasks were performed, will no longer be permitted in applications for attorney fees in this court and that tasks should be billed individually and in tenths of an hour. I also agree that in the application submitted by relators, Mark A. Harris, Richard N. Haig, Jacqueline L. Kogan, Cheryl L. Davis, and Travis Lane Maggard (the "committee"), to recover attorney fees in connection with the committee's successful petition for a writ of mandamus, the…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Loranger v. StierheimCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
  4. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Loretta J. Brokeshoulder SCHWARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995

17 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