Hoefer & Arnett, Inc. v. Lehigh Press, 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 a district court may cut hours for duplication, padding or frivolous claims
• explaining that, once the plaintiffs are determined to be the prevailing party, “they are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for all time reasonably spent on a matter.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that in cases with multiple counsel \we have approved the arbitrary but essentially fair approach of simply deducting a small percentage of the total hours to eliminate duplication of services\
• reversing trial court’s denial of all attorney’s fees because “[i]t is impermissible ... to eliminate wholesale the services of attorneys without identifying the particular services which are regarded as duplicative”
• “The prejudice [from the delay in seeking fees], if any, has inured to the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have provided years of service without compensation in hand.”
• district court denial of fees to NAACP Legal Defense Fund improper; trial court’s basis for denial apparently that NAACP lawyers provided duplicative services

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).