Legal Opinion
District of Columbia v. Jerry M.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 5, 1990No. 89-1371PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
This case is before us on appeal from the trial court’s award of $63,497.58 in attorney's fees to Donna Wulkan for her work between June 8, 1988 and June 29, 1989, in enforcing the District of Columbia’s compliance with a consent decree in the matter of the complex and lengthy “Jerry M.” litigation. See District of Columbia v. Jerry M., 571 A.2d 178 (D.C.1990). We hold that Ms. Wulkan’s services are fully compensable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982), but vacate the award in part and remand to the trial court for further findings as to the reasonableness of the fee award.
I
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Rhodes v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Clark v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- District of Columbia v. PattersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- District of Columbia v. Jerry M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Link v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Bagley v. Foundation for the Preservation of Historic GeorgetownDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.