United States v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a prevailing party “is only entitled to recover fees for time productively spent”
• noting that a court may look to an attorney's \actual billing practices to determine the relevant rate\
• explaining that once court determined intervenor was entitled to relief, it should not have held “procrastination” against him for purposes of fee award and, thus, district court abused its discretion in reducing fee award
• rejecting similar argument and affirming fee reduction when \district court plausibly could have determined that efficient counsel would not have invested the time . . . in litigating marginal issues\
• noting “familiar problem” of overstaffing in cases involving prospect of fee shifting and that “Goldberg’s work, taken at face value, appears to mimic portions of Grantland’s work” with “absolutely nothing in the record” to suggest “a legitimate need for a second attorney”
• “extent of success achieved by a prevailing party is ‘a crucial factor’ in shaping a fee award”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).