Laoye v. Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming a 25 percent cut “because plaintiffs overstaffed the case, resulting in the needless duplication of work and retention of unnecessary personnel”
• approving a 25% across-the-board reduction in requested hours in civil-rights action to address overstaffing and duplicative work based on district court’s evaluation of the scope and complexity of the matter
• “Arbor Hill did not hold that district courts must recite and make separate findings as to all twelve Johnson factors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).