Arthur Chambless and Mildred H. Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that effect of suit, rather than the purpose for which it was brought, is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor
• holding that it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to award attorneys’ fees where each element of five part test has been satisfied
• holding that the District Court should have awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees with respect to the amount of time plaintiff's counsel devoted to plaintiff's one successful claim, even though most of his claims were found to be without merit
• holding that the District Court should have awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees with respect to the amount of time plaintiff's counsel devoted to plaintiff's one successful claim, even though most of his claims were found to be without merit
• holding that the district court should have awarded the plaintiff attorneys’ fees with respect to the amount of time plaintiffs counsel devoted to plaintiffs one successful claim, even though most of his claims were found to be without merit
• requiring district court to evaluate the five factors with respect to the ERISA claim rather than other claims in the lawsuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).