Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Bannum, Inc. v. 2210 Adams Place, N.E., LLC
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 2, 2010No. Nos. 08-CV-291, 08-CV-652, 08-CV-1023, 08-CV-1031Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchwelb, Senior Judge
I agree with, and I am pleased to join, all of Judge Kramer’s persuasive opinion except Part III C, in which the court affirms the trial judge’s award of counsel fees to the landlord. As to that issue, I agree that the landlord was entitled to recover some of its counsel fees,1 but I would vacate the award and remand for a more practical assessment of the degree to which the landlord prevailed and of the amount that should be awarded.
I recognize that “a request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Fleming v. Carroll Pub. Co., 581 A.2d 1219, 1229 (D.C.1990)…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Schaeffer v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.