Laughlin v. Wilson

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 did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of the hours worked by defendant's counsel, \without suggesting that the [district] court would have erred by compelling discovery\
• noting in the context of an antitrust case that \the task of defending a civil case may require more work than the task of prosecuting\
• interest rate adjustment to prevailing party’s attorney’s fees not appropriate where attorneys reimbursed on an hourly basis, however, plaintiff could be compensated for inflation
• “[P]laintiffs may collect interest on attorney’s fees or costs only from the date that the award was entered.”
• “the task of defending a civil case may require more work than the task of prosecuting” and thus “[t]he number of hours spent defending the case may therefore have little relevance to the number of hours reasonably expended by the plaintiffs counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).