State v. Lormand

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts may “reduce an attorney’s hourly rate for time spent on clerical tasks or apply an across-the-board reduction”
• holding that, to address vagueness and other deficiencies in the billing records, “the court has discretion simply to deduct a reasonable percentage of the number of hours claimed as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that block billing is permissible “as long as the district court is still able to conduct a meaningful review of the hours for which counsel seeks reimbursement.”
• affirming that courts should exclude unnecessary time expenditures from attorney’s fee awards
• explaining that the party seeking attorneys’ fees “must prepare and submit to the district court contemporaneous time records of the work performed, specifying the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the party seeking attorneys’ fees “must prepare and submit to the district court contemporaneous time records of the work performed, specifying the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).