Sentences with phrase «fees award act»

Early Civil Rights Lawyers Fought For Justice Without The Benefit Of The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act Of 1976

Not exact matches

The scheme provided SILVER with two different streams of unlawful income: (i) approximately $ 700,000 in kickbacks SILVER received by steering two real estate developers with business before the state legislature to a law firm with which he was associated, and (ii) more than $ 3 million in asbestos client referral fees SILVER received by, among other official acts, awarding $ 500,000 in state grants to a university research center of a physician who referred patients made ill by asbestos to SILVER at Weitz & Luxenberg.

Authorities said more than $ 3 million of that was obtained in «asbestos client referral fees Silver received by, among other official acts, awarding $ 500,000 in state grants to a university research center of a physician who referred patients made ill by asbestos to Silver at Weitz & Luxenberg.»

Airlines» balancing act Still, airlines have a careful balancing act when it comes to award - ticket fees.

A related state code, the Disabled Persons Act, allows a plaintiff to recover three times the actual damages, or a minimum of $ 1,000, with attorneys» fees awarded to the prevailing party at the judge's discretion.

The District Court denied Kirtsaeng's motion, giving» «substantial weight» to the «objective reasonableness» of Wiley's infringement claim,» and stating that» «the imposition of a fee award against a copyright holder with an objectively reasonable» - although unsuccessful - «litigation position will generally not promote the purposes of the Copyright Act,»» and that no other factors «outweighed» that objective reasonableness to warrant fee - shifting.

Both Wiley and Kirtsaeng proposed that the Court provide guidance to district courts in order to direct their discretion in determining whether to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party «towar [d] the purposes of the Copyright Act,» which the Court articulates as «enriching the general public through access to creative works» and «enhancing the probability that both creators and users... will enjoy the substantive rights» provided by the Copyright Act.

In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the test for awarding attorney's fees when applying the Copyright Act's discretionary fee - shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505.

This case provides long - awaited guidance on the test for awarding fees in copyright cases, articulating an analysis similar to the discretionary totality - of - circumstances test adopted in the Court's Octane Fitness decision on the fee - shifting provision in the Patent Act.

The Supreme Court has previously noted that the fee - shifting provision of the Patent Act, which permits district courts to award attorney's fees to prevailing parties in «exceptional cases,» is «similar» to Section 505 of the Copyright Act, which merely permits a court to award reasonable attorney's fees at its discretion.

Defendant successfully defeated trademark claims in what should have been characterized as an «exceptional case» under Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014); therefore, Defendant was entitled to remand for reconsideration of awarding legal fees under the Lanham Act.

-- authored by Circuit Judge Hurwitz [majority decision] and concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Reinhardt; discussed in our Oct. 10, 2015 post: District court in Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act case which substantially reduced fee request was reversed based upon its reliance on inapt practice area hourly rates, upon its discounts for plaintiff's attorneys not delegating tasks to associates given that only small firms prosecuted these type of cases, and upon its use of stale prior fee awards involving fee claimant's attorneys.

1979 (2016): SCOTUS sets forth flexible factors to be weighed for purposes of district judges awarding fees to a prevailing party under the Copyright Act's fee - shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505.

And because the Prison Litigation Reform Act caps fee awards at 150 percent of damages, her attorneys were entitled to only $ 1.50, rather than the $ 140,000 they had requested.

Answer: The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1997 limits attorney fees to 150 percent of a jury award, so by my calculations your fee award should be $ 1.50.

As the article reports, a federal judge awarded $ 957,710 in attorney fees, plus costs and prejudgment interest, to Skadden Arps for its pro bono representation of a group of waiters, busboys and captains who sued their restaurant - employer for unlawfully witholding tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Dealing first with the issue of the nature of costs that I can properly award, I find that as a result of section 148.2 (2) and section 148.2 (3) of the Regulation, I am constrained to only awarding party and party costs and I am not permitted to award actual reasonable legal fees as specified in section 11 (2)(a) of the Commercial Arbitration Act.

U.S. District Court Judge Awards Over $ 2.5 Million In Fees And Costs To Lawyers Representing Two Plaintiffs In U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Case Main In The News....

The Illinois Supreme Court was asked to consider whether under Section 10 of the act, a lien by a health - care professional or provider must be calculated, as the hospital contends, based upon a plaintiff's total recovery, or whether, as plaintiff contends, attorney fees and costs are deducted from the award prior to calculating the hospital's lien.

For all consumer attorneys, the next case should be of interest as far as what attorney's fees can be awarded under the Song - Beverly Act where confidential settlements are involved and what standard governs the award of fees to the statutory «prevailing party.»

Ct. 411 (2007)(leading case on the anti-SLAPP Act in the business and political lobbying context; upholding dismissal of claims and $ 80,000 award of attorneys fee in client's favor).

Compensation payments from NVICP have averaged $ 782,136 per successful claim through 2011, with an additional $ 113 million dispersed to pay attorney fees and legal costs (the act awards attorney fees and costs for unsuccessful claims provided that the litigants bring their claims in good faith and upon a reasonable basis, as well as for successful claims).

Nemeth v Abonmarche Development, Inc 457 Mich 16; 576 NW2d 641 (2000)(Amicus Curiae Michigan Environmental Council)(determining inter alia that Michigan Environmental Protection Act did not authorize attorney fees to be awarded as litigation costs)

Aug. 10, 2017)(published)(Hughes, J.), a district judge awarded a prevailing defendant over $ 3.9 million in attorney's fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 285).

Obtained judgment and award of attorneys» fees in favor of national supplier of hotel and hospitality products in Lanham Act false advertising and unfair competition case.

The Wage Act was amended in 2011 to allow a winning plaintiff to add to his unpaid damage award (a) attorneys» fees and costs, plus (b) 2 % monthly interest on unpaid amounts.

Affirming the trial court's judgment, the appeals court provides a useful summary of the type of proof needed to sustain constructive fraud and slander of title claims in the construction lien setting and when attorneys» fees can be awarded to prevailing parties under Illinois» mechanics lien statute, 770 ILCS 60/1 (the Act).

The Court heard oral argument this morning in Astrue v. Ratliff, a case challenging the Eighth Circuit's determination that fees awarded to a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act belong to the attorney, not the client.

S209376 (unpublished appellate decision): is a trial court award of statutorily - mandated fees and costs incurred on appeal subject to the Enforcement of Judgments Statutes if the statutory authority underlying the award is the Elder Abuse Act?

Dec. 22, 2017)(published), the Commissioner recommended that Mr. Grimm be awarded $ 52,340 for successful appellate work and subsequent «fees on fees» work in a Longshore and Harbor Workers» Compensation Act (LHWCA) case.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari from the Tenth Circuit's decision in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., U.S. No. 11 - 1175, to determine whether a prevailing defendant can be awarded routine costs (not attorney's fees) against a losing plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) case where the plaintiff was found to have brought the suit in good faith.

The council's award is restored: it was reasonable for the council to conclude that, under the Framework Agreement, the Protocol and the Act, Dr. Guérin's proceeding did not raise an arbitrable dispute, because the Fédération and the Ministère had reserved for themselves the full discretion to designate the medical imaging laboratories that would be eligible to receive the digitization fee; and also reasonable for them to conclude that, in any event, Dr. Guérin did not have standing.

Given the massive nature of the litigation hitting the council at the time, the fact that there was very little chance of settlement (particularly in the light of the conditional fee arrangements agreed with the solicitor, which drew some adverse comment) and the possible effects on council business of arranging so many meetings, the tribunal had operated the Employment Act 2002, s 31 (4) to award only a 5 % uplift, but the court agreed with the EAT that the sheer pointlessness of grievance meetings in these circumstances meant that even 5 % was an error of law and so the zero uplift in the EAT was approved.

The California Public Records Act (CPFA) has a fees / costs shifting provision in Government Code section 6259 (d) which provides that the court shall award court costs and reasonable fees to the «plaintiff» should the plaintiff prevail in CPRA litigation and shall award court costs and reasonable fees to the public agency if the court find that the «plaintiff's» case is clearly frivolous.

The PATENT Act has a provision intended to give defendants more leverage to ask the court for a fees award in cases where the plaintiff was clearly in the wrong.

As the Federal Circuit explained, Judge Payne's decision conflated Rule 11 (which gives parties the chance to withdraw) with Section 285 of the Patent Act (which allows for fee awards in exceptional cases).

The court said the trial court, in awarding the attorney's fees to the MLS, was acting within its authority, because the trial court intended to deter copyright holders from filing lawsuits without first trying to resolve the dispute out of court, which is what had happened in the photographer's case.

The court also stated that it would consider awarding attorney's fees and costs to the Association and Buyer's Representative for receiving an order confirming the award, pursuant to the Act.

Additionally, the trial court assessed punitive damages against the Broker and awarded the Buyer attorney fees, as permitted for violations of the Act which the jury found the Broker had violated.

Additionally, the trial court assessed punitive damages against the Broker and awarded the Buyer attorney fees, as permitted for violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

The court also remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the proper amount of attorney fees to be awarded under the Act, and the court also awarded the Seller attorney fees for the appeals process.

Finally, a new federal law, The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, provides courts with new powers to cancel and transfer domain names, impose stiff statutory and other damages, and award attorneys» fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury award for fraudulent concealment, but reversed the punitive damage award and attorney fees award, ruling that the Broker could not be liable for violations of the Act because of the property disclosure law.

However, in a later motion filed by the Buyers seeking attorneys» fees pursuant to the act, the court declined to award the Buyers these fees under the act because the Buyers had failed to submit sufficient evidence to the court to allow to make an award.