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

557 chars
The Court today declares that because “the record before us is clear” and
“remand would be inefficient,” it is “necessary” for us to determine the appropriate
attorneys’ fee award. Ante, at 28. Because the same can be said for most, if not all,
attorneys’ fee disputes that are appealed, it will henceforth become necessary for us
to calculate the proper attorneys’ fee award as a matter of course, whenever we find
an abuse of discretion. District courts are in a far better position to perform this time- 8
        Winter does not contest Quigley’s costs.