Tucker v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that inclusion of plaintiffs state law claims in the complaint “potentially increased plaintiffs bargaining leverage in seeking to resolve the entire suit”
• finding that time entries stating a “‘conference with’ or ‘call to’ a specified person” were impermissibly vague
• holding as “plainly inadequate” vague entries such as “‘conference with’ or ‘call to’ a specified person . . . [and] time entries that refer to unspecified communications with unidentified ‘outside counsel’ or ‘colleagues.’” (internal citations omitted)
• holding as “plainly inadequate” vague entries such as “‘conference with’ or ‘call to’ a specified person . . . [and] time entries that refer to unspecified communications with unidentified ‘outside counsel’ or ‘colleagues.’” (internal citations omitted)
• “[U]sing multiple attorneys in a simple case, which this certainly was, poses the serious potential—fully realized in this instance— for duplication of work or overstaffing.”
• noting that “[t]ime devoted to a fee application is generally compensable” when fees are awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (citing Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Cent. Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 71 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (2d Cir. 1995))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).