Hensley v. Eckerhart

E823907

Hensley v. Eckerhart is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern standard for determining reasonable attorney’s fee awards for prevailing parties in civil rights litigation.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
appliesTo civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
other federal statutes with fee-shifting provisions modeled on 42 U.S.C. § 1988
citation 103 S. Ct. 1933
461 U.S. 424
76 L. Ed. 2d 40
concurrenceBy Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED
William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED
concurrenceType concurrence in part and dissent in part
country United States of America
surface form: United States
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 1983-05-16
defendant Eckerhart NERFINISHED
docketNumber 81-1244
holding A prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights action should ordinarily recover attorney’s fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.
Courts should provide a concise but clear explanation of their reasons for fee awards.
District courts have discretion to reduce fee awards to account for limited success.
Fee applicants bear the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.
Related claims involving a common core of facts or related legal theories should generally be treated as one lawsuit for fee purposes.
The most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained.
Unrelated unsuccessful claims should be excluded from the fee calculation.
Where a plaintiff achieves only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount.
influenced subsequent federal fee-shifting jurisprudence
issue standard for determining reasonable attorney’s fees for prevailing parties in civil rights litigation
treatment of partially successful plaintiffs in fee awards
treatment of related and unrelated claims in fee calculations
joinedByInMajority Byron R. White NERFINISHED
Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED
Warren E. Burger NERFINISHED
William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED
jurisdiction federal
languageOfOpinion English NERFINISHED
legalArea attorney’s fees
civil procedure
civil rights law
majorityOpinionBy Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED
originatingCourt United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri NERFINISHED
partyStatusOfPlaintiff prevailing party
plaintiff Hensley NERFINISHED
proceduralPosture appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
standardClarified adjustment of lodestar based on degree of success obtained
standardEstablished lodestar method for calculating reasonable attorney’s fees
statuteInterpreted 42 U.S.C. § 1988
term October Term 1982

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.