Supreme Court· 2/21/1989

Blanchard v. Bergeron

Citations

489 U.S. 87
109 S. Ct. 939
103 L. Ed. 2d 67
1989 U.S. LEXIS 595
57 U.S.L.W. 4191
49 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1
49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,722

How courts have described this case

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

holding that if a contingency fee arrangement is entered between plaintiff and counsel, the trial judge is not limited to this arrangement.
holding that Congress codified the holdings of three cases when a Committee report cited those cases and said that they \correctly applied\ its view of the law
holding that Congress codified the holdings of three cases when a Committee report cited those cases and said that they “correctly applied” its view of the law
ruling that a contingent fee agreement does not serve as a cap on the amount of attorneys’ fees that can be awarded under a fee shifting statute
holding that if a contingency fee arrangement is entered between plaintiff and counsel, the trial judge is not limited to this arrangement.
holding that a fee award under § 1988 should not be capped by a contingent fee agreement between the attorney and his client

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Scalia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

776 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Blanchard v. Bergeron

8 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.