Home Life Ins. v. Madere

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court abused its discretion in presuming jury award included prejudgment interest because prejudgment interest was never mentioned
• holding that the rates to be used in calculating the lodestar for fees pursuant to § 1988 should be the “current rather than historic hourly rates.” (quotation omitted)
• noting that there was a two year gap between trials—due to a favorable appeal—and explaining that “no competent attorney would embark on a retrial without some preparation”
• providing that, in calculating the lodestar amount, the rates used generally “are the market rates prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the purpose of doing so is to “permit meaningful appellate review”
• awarding fees incurred during a prior trial that ended in a mistrial, where the mistrial was primarily due to the court’s error—not the plaintiff’s

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).