Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)

Citation: Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Parent Document: Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-03-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/231/quigley-v-winter/ ↗

Full Text

1,079 chars

I join all of the Court’s opinion with the exception of the decision to forego a remand to the district court for a proper calculation of the attorneys’ fee award. I do not interpret the Supreme Court’s statement in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), about avoiding a “second major litigation” to encourage courts of appeals to usurp the traditional role of district courts in determining the proper fee award. Rather, I read Hensley to suggest that it is the deferential standard of review, not our ability to calculate a fee award de novo, that alleviates the Supreme Court’s efficiency concerns, including “avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.” See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933; see also id. at 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (listing twelve factors to consider in calculating a fee award). We review the amount of an award using the deferential abuse of discretion standard precisely because “of the district court’s superior understanding of the litigation.” See id. at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933.

Other Sections in This Document (232)

Full Text