Legal Opinion
Jaime Blum and Brij Kapur and James C. Spitsbergen v. Witco Chemical Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 20, 1989No. 89-5132PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
We are faced once again with the elusive task of deciding whether and under what circumstances attorneys for a successful plaintiff entitled to a statutory fee award may augment the lodestar with a multiplier for risk and/or delay. To date, the Supreme Court has been unable to produce a majority opinion on this issue. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) {Delaware Valley II). This precise case was previously before us, and we remanded the portion of the district…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Jaime Blum, Brij Kapur and James C. Spitsbergen, in 86-5349 v. Witco Chemical Corporation, in 86-5310Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Rode v. DellarcipreteCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Keenan v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
- Rode v. DellarcipreteCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.