Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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)
Effective Date
2010-03-16

Other Sections in This Document (232)

Full Text

890 chars
-26-
(“Normally, a district court begins with a lodestar analysis, because failure to conduct
such an undertaking ‘creates a substantial burden upon the district court to account for
its actions.’” (quoting Coutin v. Young & Rubicam P.R., Inc., 124 F.3d 331, 338 (1st
Cir. 1997))); Moton v. Nathan & Nathan, P.C., 297 F. App’x 930, 932 (11th Cir.
2008) (“Although the district court admittedly has wide discretion in this arena, we
nonetheless are constrained to hold that the district court abused its discretion by
failing to perform any ‘lodestar’ calculation at all.” (citation omitted)); Pa. Envt’l.
Defense Found. v. Canon-McMillan Sch. Dist., 152 F.3d 228, 232-33, 235 (3d Cir.
1998) (reversing and remanding based on the district court’s failure to use the lodestar
method in awarding attorney fees); Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363-
64, 365 (9th Cir. 1996) (same).