Legal Opinion

Jeffers v. Tucker

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided August 11, 1993No. H-C-89-004Published

1Opinion of the Court

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Circuit Judge.

The question before us is whether we may increase the lodestar portion of the attorneys’ fees previously awarded so that it reflects the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ risk of loss for undertaking the case on a contingent basis. In Jeffers v. Clinton, 776 F.Supp. 465, 473-74 (E.D.Ark.1991), after setting the attorneys’ lodestar—that is, the product of reasonable hours expended times a reasonable hourly rate—we granted a 50 per cent, enhancement to compensate the attorneys for their contingency risk. We granted a partial stay of that order on December 6, 1991.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Mary KIENTZY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
  3. Jeffers v. ClintonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
  4. Jeffers v. ClintonDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API