Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating the “trend towards adoption of a percentage of the fund method in [common fund] cases.”
• “enhancing the lodestar with a separate multiplier can serve as a means to account for the risk an attorney assumes in undertaking a ease, the quality of the attorney’s work product, and the benefit achieved”
• upholding district judge decision to apply multiplier of two, despite class counsel requesting a multiplier of three, because settlement only resulted in class members recovering 21% of their initial investment
• “When awarding attorney’s fees in a class action, a court must make sure that counsel is fairly compensated for the amount of work done as well as for the results achieved.”
• post-Dague case stating that, in the Sixth Circuit, contingency risk is one factor that is \the focus of a district court’s analysis when determining whether to utilize a multiplier\
• citations and quotations omitted in this and following citations except as otherwise noted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 2000-03-28· cited 476×
• Unnamed case
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-03-23· cited 303×
• Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 2016-08-11· cited 157×
• Gottlieb v. Barry
  Tenth Circuit· 1994-12-09· cited 146×
• Moulton v. United States Steel Corp.
  Sixth Circuit· 2009-09-22· cited 136×
• Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.
  Sixth Circuit· 1996-12-12· cited 129×
• Chun v. Board of Trustees
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2005-01-31· cited 114×
• In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Michigan· 2003-10-10· cited 106×
• Amber Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC
  Sixth Circuit· 2016-05-13· cited 102×
• In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1998-11-09· cited 96×
• Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2000-07-10· cited 95×
• Goodrich v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1996-08-26· cited 89×
• Shaw v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2000-01-28· cited 61×
• Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2006-08-24· cited 55×
• In Re American Bank Note Holographics, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2001-01-02· cited 47×
• Edwards v. Alaska Pulp Corp.
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1996-06-28· cited 38×
• Kogan v. Aimco Fox Chase, L.P.
  E.D. Michigan· 2000-05-30· cited 37×
• Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.
  Sixth Circuit· 1998-01-05· cited 35×
• Kuhnlein v. Department of Revenue
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1995-10-12· cited 33×
• Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co.
  S.D. New York· 1994-10-03· cited 27×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hensley v. Eckerhart
  Supreme Court· 1983-05-16· cited 17,202×
• Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Brown
  Supreme Court· 1988-10-03· cited 198×
• Oliver S. Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Etc., Mobil Oil Corporation, Ashland Oil, Inc.
  Tenth Circuit· 1988-03-02· cited 178×
• Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 1991-10-09· cited 91×
• Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
  Third Circuit· 1973-10-31· cited 63×
• Florida v. Dunne
  Ninth Circuit· 1990-10-02· cited 50×