Legal Opinion

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 24, 2010No. 09-448Published

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas

In most lawsuits seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., “a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs” are available “to either party” at the court’s “discretion.” § 1132(g)(1). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has interpreted § 1132(g)(1) to require that a fee claimant be a “prevailing party” before he may seek a fees award. We reject this interpretation as con*245trary to § 1132(g)(l)’s plain text. We hold instead that a court “in its discretion” may award fees and costs “to either party,”…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009

15 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