In Re WICAT Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the magnitude and complexity of the litigation, the quality of the representation, the contingent nature of the engagement and the risk'of nonpayment, and public policy considerations are relevant to the use of a multiplier
• holding the magnitude and complexity of the litigation, the quality of the representation, the contingent nature of the engagement and the risk of nonpayment, and public policy considerations are relevant to the use of a multiplier
• referencing, but departing slightly downwards from, the Third Circuit Task Force’s standardized fee schedule which approves rates between $200 and $85 for attorneys
• expenses reduced for failure to articulate and support value and reasonableness
• denying an enhancement for contingency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• William Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
  First Circuit· 1991-02-11· cited 259×
• In Re South Dakota Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 2005-11-16· cited 39×
• Sea Spray Holdings, Ltd. v. Pali Financial Group, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2003-08-13· cited 25×
• Jane L. v. Bangerter
  D. Utah· 1993-06-29· cited 19×
• McKenzie v. Kennickell
  District of Columbia· 1988-04-18· cited 15×
• Purdy v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n
  E.D. Wisconsin· 1989-12-22· cited 12×
• DAVID C. v. Leavitt
  D. Utah· 1995-07-03· cited 3×
• United States v. Self
  D. Utah· 1992-11-24· cited 2×

Other cases named In Re WICAT Securities Litigation

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• In Re Wicat Securities Litigation
  D. Utah· 1984-12-20· cited 6×