Legal Opinion
Roosevelt Love v. Emit C. Deal
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided October 29, 1993No. 92-8792PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge:
The Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s order denying one of their lawyers attorney’s fees for work he performed on their voting rights case. On appeal, the Plaintiffs raise two issues. First, they contend that the district court erred by fading to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to denying their fee request. Second, they argue that even if an evidentiary hearing is not required, the reasons advanced by the district court are insufficient to justify the denial of attorney’s fees. Because we conclude that both of these arguments…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Mattie Norman, Clara Marshall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Housing Authority of the City of MontgomeryCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- Inez Martin, Henri Mae King v. Margaret HecklerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Tom H. Riddell, Jr. v. The National Democratic Party v. Honorable William L. Waller, Governor of the State of MississippiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Cheffer v. RenoCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1995
- John Doe v. James T. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
- Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
- Provenzano v. SingletaryCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- The Crescent Publishing Group, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., Doing Business as Playboy MagazineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.