Goodrich v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Court of Chancery was within its discretion in conditioning the award of attorney’s fees upon claims actually submitted
• holding that a common fund existed even though class members’ individual claims might be reduced based on the number of claimants
• observing that “adoption of a mandatory methodology or particular mathematical model for determining attorney’s fees in common fund cases would be the antithesis of the equitable principles from which the concept of such awards originated”
• rejecting a federal rule that awarded attorneys’ fees as a percentage in relation to the maximum common fund available, without regard to what benefits were realized by class members
• “[T]he common fund doctrine permits an attorney to independently request an award of fees from that same settlement fund.”
• “The equitable nature of awarding attorney’s fees from a common fund requires a court to exercise broad discretion by applying a reasonableness standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).