Legal Opinion
In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided June 18, 1985No. MDL 381PublishedCited by 98 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................... 1301
II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES..............................1303
A. General Problem.............................1303
B. Fee Award ..................................1304
1. “Lodestar” Analysis.......................1305(a) Billable Hours and Time Records.......1306(b) Hourly Rate...........................1307(c) Discretionary Multiplier................1310(i) Risk of Litigation..................1310(ii) Complexity of Issues...............1312(iii) Demonstrated Skill of Attorneys..,. 1313(iv) Delay in…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by98 opinions
- In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation Mdl No. 381Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation. (Appeal of Attorneys' Fee Awards)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- In Re: Cendant Corporation Prides LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.