Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. Agyei

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 19, 1989No. 88-64Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice O’Connor, with whom Justice Scalia joins, and with whom The Chief Justice joins in part,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the Court that 42 U. S. C. §1988 allows compensation for the work of paralegals and law clerks at market rates, and therefore join Parts I and III of its opinion. I do not join Part II, however, for in my view the Eleventh Amendment does not permit enhancement of attorney’s *290fees assessed against a State as compensation for delay in payment.

The Eleventh Amendment does not, of course, provide a State with across-the-board immunity from all…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Hutto v. FinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

12 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