Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Supreme Court of the United States
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
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.