Paul Liles v. Macomb County Employees

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an objector who did not file a claim “laek[ed] any interest in the amount of fees, since he would not receive a penny from the fund even if counsel’s take should be reduced to zero”
• holding that an objector who did not file a claim “lack[ed] any interest in the amount of fees, since he would not receive a penny from the fund even if counsel’s take should be reduced to zero”
• noting that ex ante agreements better approximate the prevailing market rate between willing buyers and willing sellers of legal services
• observing that the empirical data show that the percentage of the fund awarded to counsel declines as the size of the fund increases
• observing that expert report characterized case as “unusually risky” and that defendant “might well have prevailed on summary judgment but for some unanticipated facts plaintiffs’ lawyers turned up in discovery”
• affirming an award of 27.5% of a $200 million common fund despite the fact that it was “well above the norm” according to the academic studies, which reported a mean of 12% and a median of 10.2%

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).