Cases by Issue - Attorneys

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

05-18

Petitioner

Arlington Central School District Board of Education

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pearl Murphy, et vir

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

548 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Friday, January 6, 2006

Argued

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Decided

Monday, June 26, 2006

Advocates

Raymond G. Kuntz (argued the cause for Petitioner)

David C. Vladeck (argued the cause for Respondents)

David B. Salmons (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Using the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Joseph Murray's parents brought legal action to require the Arlington Central School District to pay for their son's private school tuition. After they prevailed, they sought reimbursement from the school district for fees they had paid to an educational consultant during the proceedings. They relied on an IDEA provision that allows courts to "award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs" to prevailing parents. The school district argued that under Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, and West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, expert fees can only be reimbursed when there is explicit authorization in the statute. Because the statute made no specific mention of expert fees, the school district argued, the fees could not be reimbursed. The federal district court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, however, finding that a Congressional Conference Committee Report and a footnote in Casey referencing it showed that IDEA was intended to authorize reimbursement of expert fees.

Question

Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permit parents to recover fees they pay to experts during legal actions against school districts?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Arlington Central School District Board of Education, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education of the Handicapped, Education for All Handicapped Children, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts, or related statutes, as amended; also see ADA

No. In a 6-to-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that IDEA did not authorize reimbursement of expert fees. "While authorizing the award of reasonable attorney's fees, the Act contains detailed provisions that are designed to ensure that such awards are indeed reasonable," Justice Alito wrote. "The absence of any comparable provisions relating to expert fees strongly suggests that recovery of expert fees is not authorized." Justice Alito went on to write that the case was made even simpler by the fact that, as an exercise of Congress's Spending Clause power, any provision requiring reimbursement of expert fees would have had to be "unambiguous," which it clearly was not. Justice Ginsburg, who joined the majority in finding that expert fees were not covered, wrote separately to disagree with that portion of the opinion.

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-1140

Petitioner

Gerald T. Martin, et ux.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Franklin Capital Corporation, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Opinion

546 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Monday, April 25, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 2005

Decided

Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Advocates

Jan T. Chilton (argued the cause for Respondents)

Samuel H. Heldman (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's reasoning. The Court ruled that the state court did not act unreasonably when it determined that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations were credible. Although there might have been some evidence that could be interpreted as undermining the prosecutor's credibility, the trial court was in a better position to determine those facts. The Court faulted the Ninth Circuit for substituting "its own debatable interpretation of the record" for the trial courts findings, and for "misapplying settled rules that limit [the Circuit Court's] role and authority."

Question

What standard should federal courts use when determining whether to award attorney's fees after an improperly removed case is remanded to state court?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Franklin Capital Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1447

In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that "absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal." The Court admitted that Section 1447 is unclear on when attorney's fees should be added. The Court's reading of the statute detected no strong textual bias for or against awarding fees. Considering the likely motives of Congress, the Court ruled that attorney's fees should only be awarded when a party sought removal without an objectively reasonable basis. Since Franklin had such a basis, Martin was not entitled to any fees.

Scarborough v. Principi

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-1657

Petitioner

Randall C. Scarborough

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

541 U.S. 401 (2004)

Granted

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Argued

Monday, February 23, 2004

Decided

Monday, May 3, 2004

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (argued the cause for Respondent)

Brian Wolfman (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Randall Scarborough won a case against the Department of Veterans Affairs. He then applied for attorney's fees to the U.S. Veterans' Court under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Under the EAJA, the government must pay attorney's fees to anyone who wins against the federal government in litigation unless the government can show that its position was "substantially justified." However, Scarborough's attorney submitted an incomplete application, neglecting to assert that the government's position was not substantially justified. Though he amended and resubmitted it, he did so after the 30-day filing deadline. The Veterans' Court dismissed the application for "lack of subject matter jurisdiction" - that is, because it was not filed in its complete form within the 30-day deadline. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Question

May someone who won a suit against the government and applied for repayment of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act amend his application to assert that the government's position in the suit was not "substantially justified"?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Scarborough, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

Yes. In a 7-to-2 opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the statement on the application that the government's position had not been "substantially justified" was merely procedural. There was no need to prove the assertion - the applicant merely had to make the claim to shift the burden of proof to the government. Because the government was not harmed by the initial omission of the statement - filing the claim made it obvious that the applicant thought the government's position was not substantially justified, even without the specific statement - Scarborough should be able to amend his application even after the 30-day filing period had passed.

Lamie v. United States Trustee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-693

Petitioner

John M. Lamie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States Trustee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

540 U.S. 526 (2004)

Granted

Monday, March 10, 2003

Argued

Monday, November 10, 2003

Decided

Monday, January 26, 2004

Advocates

Lisa S. Blatt (argued the cause for Respondent)

Thomas C. Goldstein (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

In the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 Congress created a list of people that corporations could pay while going through Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy attorney for the corporation was not included in that list. John Lamie, a bankruptcy attorney, challenged the law, arguing that the omission of bankruptcy attorneys from the list was accidental. The bankruptcy court that heard the case ruled that the omission was not inadvertent. Nevertheless, it awarded Lamie the fees in question because money intended to pay them had been set aside in a retainer before the corporation entered Chapter 7 proceedings. A Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the decision to pay Lamie, holding that the retainer was not separate from the corporation's other funds. On the issue of whether the omission of the bankruptcy attorney from the list of acceptable payees, the panel affirmed the lower court's decision.

Question

Did Congress intend to omit bankruptcy attorneys from the list of people a corporation could pay during Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States Trustee, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the Fourth Circuit, ruling that the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 did not authorize the payment of bankruptcy attorneys by corporations going through Chapter 7 bankruptcy. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the Court: "The statute is awkward, and even ungrammatical; but that does not make it ambiguous on the point at issue." The Court ruled that though the Act's deletion of the words "or to the debtor's attorney" from the Bankruptcy Code had rendered a sentence grammatically incorrect, the Act should still be interpreted according to the plain meaning of its text, however awkward. The Court found the legislative history of the Act inconclusive, and concluded that "we must determine intent from the statute before us." The text of the statute, erroneously or not, omitted bankruptcy attorneys from the list of people bankrupt corporations could pay. r

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-131

Petitioner

Gisbrecht

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barnhart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

535 U.S. 789 (2002)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Advocates

Eric Schnaufer (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

David B. Salmons (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Under 42 USC section 406(b), an attorney who successfully represents a Social Security benefits claimant in court may be awarded a reasonable fee not in excess of 25 percent of the past-due benefits awarded to the claimant, payable out of the amount of the past-due benefits. After three individuals prevailed on their claims for Social Security disability benefits and successfully sought attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, their attorneys were to collect 25 percent of all past-due benefits recovered from each claimant, pursuant to contingent-fee agreements. In each case, the District Court declined to give effect to the attorney-client fee agreement, instead employing a "lodestar" method, under which the number of hours reasonably devoted to each case was multiplied by the reasonable hourly fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Do lodestar fee awards for attorneys who successfully represent Social Security benefits claimants in court, under 42 USC section 406(b), displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gisbrecht, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

No. In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that section 406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, section 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements. The Court reasoned that, because section 406(b) was enacted at a time when contingent fee agreements were prevalent in Social Security cases and before the lodestar method of calculating fees was developed, section 406 was intended to prohibit only unreasonable contingent fee agreements and reasonable agreements remained enforceable. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented.

Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. West Virginia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1848

Petitioner

Buckhannon Board & Care Home

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

West Virginia

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 598 (2001)

Argued

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Advocates

David P. Cleek (Charleston, West Virginia, argued the cause for the respondents)

Beth S. Brinkmann (Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Webster J. Arceneaux, III (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. operates care homes that provide assisted living to their residents. Buckhannon filed an inspection by the West Virginia fire marshal's office because some residents were incapable of "self- preservation." Buckhannon brought suit against the State and others arguing that the "self-preservation" requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Afterwards the state legislature eliminated the requirement and the District Court dismissed the case as moot. Buckhannon then requested attorney's fees as the "prevailing party" under the FHAA and ADA. Buckhannon based its claim on the "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a "prevailing party" if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Does the term "prevailing party" include a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for West Virginia, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the "catalyst theory" is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the FHAA and ADA. "In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees -- the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist, "[u]nder this 'American Rule,' we follow 'a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority.'" Dissenting, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that "Congress prescribed fee-shifting provisions like those included in the FHAA and ADA to encourage private enforcement of laws designed to advance civil rights. Fidelity to that purpose calls for court-awarded fees when a private party's lawsuit, whether or not its settlement is registered in court, vindicates rights Congress sought to secure."

Martin v. Hadix

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-262

Petitioner

Martin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hadix

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

527 U.S. 343 (1999)

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 1999

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1999

Advocates

Thomas L. Casey (Lansing, Michigan, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Deborah LaBelle (on behalf of the Respondents)

Deborah A. La Belle (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Everett Hadix and other prisoners in the Michigan prison system filed a class action lawsuit against prison officials claiming that the conditions of their confinement violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Thereafter, Hadix and the officials entered into a consent decree to remedy the situation. In 1987, the District Court ruled that Hadix was entitled to attorney's fees for post-judgment monitoring of compliance with the decrees. The court established specific market rates for awarding fees. By April 26, 1996, the effective date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), the market rate was $150 per hour. The PLRA limited the size of fees that may be awarded to attorneys who litigate prisoner lawsuits to a maximum hourly rate of $112.50. When first presented with the issue, the District Court concluded that the PLRA cap did not limit attorney's fees for services performed in these cases prior to, but that were still unpaid by, the PLRA's effective date. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Next, fee requests were filed with the District Court for services performed during a period encompassing work performed both before and after the PLRA's effective date. The District Court reiterated its earlier conclusion. The Court of Appeals held that the PLRA's fee limitation does not apply to cases pending on the enactment date because if it did, it would have an impermissible retroactive effect, regardless of when the work was performed.

Question

Does the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 limit an attorney's fees for post-judgment monitoring services that were pending when the Act became effective?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Martin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 1997

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 "limits attorney's fees for post-judgment monitoring services performed after the PLRA's effective date, but does not limit fees for monitoring performed before that date." "To impose the new standards now, for work performed before the PLRA became effective, would upset the reasonable expectations of the parties," Justice O'Connor wrote for the Court. All nine justices agreed that the PLRA should apply to services performed after the law's effective date. However, the Court split over whether the new fee limits contained in the law apply to work performed after April 26, 1996, in cases begun before that date. A 7-2 majority said that the new limits do apply to such cases. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissented from that part of the Court's conclusion.

Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-226

Petitioner

Florida Bar

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Went For It Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 618 (1995)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1995

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1995

Advocates

Barry Scott Richard (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Bruce S. Rogow (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

Went For It, Inc., (a lawyer referral service) and John T. Blakely (a Florida attorney) were sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives who had been injured in an accident. According to Florida Bar rules, such direct and targeted mailings are prohibited for thirty days following an accident or disaster.

Question

Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Florida Bar, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. Lawyer advertising is commercial speech and as such, is accorded only a limited measure of First Amendment protection. Under this "intermediate scrutiny," restriction on commercial speech is permissible if the government (1) asserts a substantial interest in support of its regulation; (2) establishes that the restriction directly and materially advances that interest; and (3) demonstrates that the regulation is narrowly drawn.

Ibanez v. Florida Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-639

Petitioner

Ibanez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

512 U.S. 136 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 1994

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1994

Advocates

Silvia S. Ibanez (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lisa S. Nelson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ibanez, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Key Tronic Corp. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-376

Petitioner

Key Tronic Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

511 U.S. 809 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1994

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1994

Advocates

Mark David Schneider (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 42 U.S.C. 9601

None

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1750

Petitioner

Fogerty

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fantasy, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 517 (1994)

Argued

Wednesday, December 8, 1993

Decided

Tuesday, March 1, 1994

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth I. Sidle (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

After successfully defending against a copyright infringement suit filed against him by Fantasy Inc. (Fantasy), John Fogerty sought to recover the cost of his attorney's fees from Fantasy. Fogerty based his claim on 17 U.S.C. section 505 which states in part that: "the court may award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." On appeal from an unfavorable district court ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed as it found that Fogerty did not demonstrate that Fantasy's original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith. Fogerty appealed again, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Do federal courts have discretion over whether or not to force a loosing party to pay all or part of the victorious party's attorney's fees?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fogerty, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 17 U.S.C. 505

Yes. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that while attorney's fees are awarded from time to time to prevailing defendants or plaintiffs, this practice is entirely subject to the deciding court's discretion. Indeed, the Court observed, that the statute in question emphasizes such discretion by stating in relevant part that a court "may" award attorney's fees. The Court concluded that such discretion is to be applied evenhandedly between victorious defendants and plaintiffs.

Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services v. Schaefer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-311

Petitioner

Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Schaefer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 292 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

William K. Kelley (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Randall J. Fuller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Schaefer, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Farrar, Coadministrators Of Estate Of Farrar, Deceased v. Hobby

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-990

Petitioner

Farrar et al., Coadministrators Of Estate Of Farrar, Deceased

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hobby

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 103 (1992)

Argued

Wednesday, October 7, 1992

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1992

Advocates

Finis E. Cowan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Gerald M. Birnberg (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hobby, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

City Of Burlington v. Dague

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-810

Petitioner

City Of Burlington

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dague et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

505 U.S. 557 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1992

Decided

Wednesday, June 24, 1992

Advocates

Michael B. Clapp (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard H. Seamon (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Barry L. Goldstein (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for City Of Burlington, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments

None

Ardestani v. Immigration And Naturalization Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1141

Petitioner

Ardestani

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 129 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 8, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Advocates

David N. Soloway (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Kay v. Ehrler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-79

Petitioner

Kay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ehrler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

499 U.S. 432 (1991)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1991

Advocates

Ann M. Sheadel (on behalf of the Respondents)

Timothy B. Dyk (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (on behalf of United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ehrler, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-994

Petitioner

West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Casey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

499 U.S. 83 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, October 9, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 19, 1991

Advocates

Calvin Royer Koons (on behalf of the Respondent)

Robert T. Adams (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Casey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Commissioner, INS v. Jean

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-601

Petitioner

Commissioner, INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jean

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 154 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Ira Jay Kurzban (on behalf of the Respondents)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jean, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Venegas v. Mitchell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1725

Petitioner

Venegas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 82 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 1990

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1990

Advocates

Charles A. Miller (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard M. Mosk (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mitchell, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1775

Petitioner

Peel

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 91 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1990

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Steven J. Marzen (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

William F. Moran, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Peel, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Department of Labor v. Triplett

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1671

Petitioner

Department of Labor

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Triplett

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 88-1688

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 715 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, January 16, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1990

Advocates

Jane Moran (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Petitioner U.S. Department of Labor)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department of Labor, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Flight Attendants v. Zipes

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-608

Petitioner

Flight Attendants

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zipes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 754 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, April 25, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

Aram A. Hartunian (on behalf of Respondents)

Steven A. Fehr (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Flight Attendants, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Sullivan v. Hudson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-616

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hudson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 877 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1989

Advocates

James E. Coleman, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hudson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1759

Petitioner

Texas Teachers Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Garland School Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 782 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 1, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Advocates

Robert H. Chanin (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Earl Luna (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Texas Teachers Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Missouri v. Jenkins

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:21 +0000

Location

Kansas City Missouri School District

1211 McGee St Kansas City MO 64106

Kansas City, MO 64106

United States

39° 5' 59.1144" N, 94° 34' 46.9344" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-64

Petitioner

Missouri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kalima Jenkins et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 274 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Decided

Monday, June 19, 1989

Advocates

Bruce Farmer (Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Jay Topkis (argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Kansas City Missouri School District hired lawyers to argue a major desegregation case against the state of Missouri in federal district court. When the lawyers won the case after years of litigation, they sought compensation from Missouri under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. The district court calculated the amount owed using current market rates for attorney's fees. Missouri objected to paying the lawyers at current rates for work they performed in the past when rates were lower. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against Missouri. Missouri alleged that the federal courts violated its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity privileges by forcing it to pay higher rates.

Question

Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, does the Eleventh Amendment prohibit a federal court from requiring a state to pay lawyers at current market rates for past litigation? Can legal assistants be charged at current market rates rather than at their cost to the lawyers at the time of litigation?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jenkins, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

No and Yes. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the opinion for a 7-1 court. The Court referred to its decision in Hutto v. Finney to establish that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply "to an award of attorney's fees against a State." Therefore "it follows that the same is true for the calculation of the amount of the fee." Charging current rates for lawyers compensated for the delay in payment to them. Further, charging current rates for legal assistants rather than their cost to attorneys during litigation took account of the entire service the lawyers provided. This constituted "a reasonable attorney's fee" under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.

Blanchard v. Bergeron

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1485

Petitioner

Blanchard

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bergeron

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 87 (1989)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1988

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1989

Advocates

William W. Rosen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Edmond L. Guidry, III (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Blanchard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-16

Petitioner

Shapero

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky Bar Assn.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 466 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Donald L. Cox (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Frank P. Doheny, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shapero, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Bowen v. Galbreath

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1146

Petitioner

Bowen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Galbreath

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 74 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Anthony W. Bartels (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard J. Lazarus (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Bowen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Supplemental Security Income

None

Pierce v. Underwood

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1512

Petitioner

Pierce

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Underwood

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

487 U.S. 552 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 27, 1988

Advocates

Mary S. Burdick (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Underwood, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Frazier v. Heebe

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-475

Petitioner

Frazier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Heebe

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 641 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Curtis R. Boisfontaine (on behalf of the Respondents)

Cornish F. Hitchcock (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Frazier, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Hewitt v. Helms

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1630

Petitioner

Hewitt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Helms

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 755 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, March 4, 1987

Decided

Friday, June 19, 1987

Advocates

Robert Harold Vesely (on behalf of the Respondents)

Thomas G. Saylor, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hewitt, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

N.C. Dept. Of Transp. v. Crest St. Council

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-767

Petitioner

N.C. Dept. Of Transp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Crest St. Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 6 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, November 4, 1986

Advocates

Michael David Calhoun (on behalf of respondents)

Lacy H. Thornburg (on behalf of Petitioners)

Richard J. Lazarus (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for N.C. Dept. Of Transp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Riverside v. Rivera

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-224

Petitioner

Riverside

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rivera

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 561 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 31, 1986

Decided

Friday, June 27, 1986

Advocates

Jonathan Kotler (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Gerald P. Lopez (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1975, eight Chicano individuals were attending a party that was broken up by the Riverside police using tear gas and physical force without a warrant. Subsequently, the eight individuals filed suit in Federal District Court against the city and various police officers under several federal Civil Rights Acts, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The jury found in the individuals' favor and awarded $33,350 in compensatory and punitive damages. The individuals also sought attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 in the amount of $245,456.25, based on 1,946.75 hours expended by their two attorneys at $125 per hour and 84.5 hours expended by law clerks at $25 per hour. Finding both the hours and rates reasonable, the District Court awarded the requested amount, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court found that the fee award was not excessive merely because it exceeded the amount of damages awarded by the jury.

Question

Is an award of attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 "unreasonable" within the meaning of the statute if it exceeds the amount of damages recovered by the plaintiff in the underlying civil rights action?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rivera, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held, 5-4, that there was no requirement under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 that attorneys' fees be proportionate to the amount of damages a civil rights plaintiff might recover. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens, reasoned that such plaintiffs seek to vindicate important constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms, and a proportionality requirement would seriously undermine Congress's purpose under the Act to insure the availability of counsel in civil rights cases. Concurring, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., reasoned that neither the prior decisions of the Supreme Court nor the legislative history of the Act supported such a requirement.

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Del. Valley Citizens' Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 546 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1986

Decided

Wednesday, July 2, 1986

Advocates

James D. Crawford (on behalf of respondents)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of respondent United States in support of petitioners)

Jay C. Waldman (on behalf of petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pennsylvania, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-5

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Del. Valley Citizens' Council

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

483 U.S. 711 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1986

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 15, 1986

Decided

Friday, June 26, 1987

Advocates

James D. Crawford (on behalf of Respondents)

Jay C. Waldman (on behalf of Petitioners)

Donald B. Ayer (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennsylvania, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Library Of Congress v. Shaw

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-54

Petitioner

Library Of Congress

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shaw

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 310 (1986)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, July 1, 1986

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (on behalf of Petitioners)

Charles Stephen Ralston (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Library Of Congress, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII

None

Evans v. Jeff D.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1288

Petitioner

Evans

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jeff D.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 717 (1986)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

William T. Coleman, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents)

James Thomas Jones (on behalf of the petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Evans, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Kentucky v. Graham

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-849

Petitioner

Kentucky

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Graham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 159 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

George M. Geoghegan, Jr. (on behalf of the petitioner)

Jack M. Lowery, Jr. (on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kentucky, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

In Re Snyder

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-310

Petitioner

In Re Snyder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 634 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 24, 1985

Advocates

David L. Peterson (on behalf of the petitioner)

John J. Greer (on behalf of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for In Re Snyder, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Walters v. Nat. Assn. Of Radiation Survivors

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-571

Appellee

Nat. Assn. Of Radiation Survivors

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Walters

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 305 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Friday, June 28, 1985

Advocates

Gordon Paul Erspamer (on behalf of the Appellees)

Mark I. Levy (on behalf of the Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Walters, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1252

None

Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Commission

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-249

Petitioner

Spencer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

South Carolina Tax Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 82 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, February 27, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Henry L. Parr, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Ray N. Stevens (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for South Carolina Tax Commission, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Zauderer v. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2166

Appellee

Office Of Disciplinary Counsel

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Zauderer

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 626 (1985)

Argued

Monday, January 7, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1985

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Appellant)

H. Bartow Farr, III (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zauderer, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Split Vote

None

Marek v. Chesny

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1437

Petitioner

Marek

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chesny

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

473 U.S. 1 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, December 5, 1984

Decided

Thursday, June 27, 1985

Advocates

Donald G. Peterson (on behalf of the petitioners)

Victor J. Stone (on behalf of the respondent)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Marek, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Webb v. Dyer County Bd. Of Ed.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1360

Petitioner

Webb

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dyer County Bd. Of Ed.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 234 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, April 17, 1985

Advocates

Charles Stephen Ralston (on behalf of Petitioner)

S. Russell Headrick (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Dyer County Bd. Of Ed., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-558

Petitioner

Irving Independent School Dist.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tatro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 883 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

James C. Todd (on behalf of the Respondent)

James W. Deatherage (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tatro, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Education of the Handicapped, Education for All Handicapped Children, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts, or related statutes, as amended; also see ADA

None

Smith v. Robinson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2120

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robinson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 992 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

E. Richard Larson (on behalf of Petitioners)

Forrest L. Avila (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Robinson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Rehabilitation

None

Blum v. Stenson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1374

Petitioner

Blum

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stenson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 886 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Advocates

Leon Silverman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Melvyn R. Leventhal (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Blum, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None

Pulliam v. Allen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1432

Petitioner

Pulliam

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 522 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Gerald L. Baliles (on behalf of Petitioner)

Deborah C. Wyatt (on behalf of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Allen, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

None

Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-242

Petitioner

Ruckelshaus

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sierra Club

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

463 U.S. 680 (1983)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1983

Decided

Friday, July 1, 1983

Advocates

Harold R. Tyler, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Kathryn A. Oberly (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ruckelshaus, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clean Air

None

Hensley v. Eckerhart

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1244

Petitioner

Hensley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eckerhart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 424 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, November 3, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1983

Advocates

Stanley J. Eichner (on behalf of the Respondents)

Michael L. Boicourt (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hensley, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards

None