skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query attorney and fees returned 42 results.

1000 ASTRUE V. RATLIFF
[Syllabus]
954 MARTIN V. HADIX
[Syllabus]
954 GISBRECHT V. BARNHART
[Syllabus]
Title 42 U. S. C. §406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements between Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel within the ceiling set forth in §406(b)(1)(A); instead it instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.
926
[Syllabus]
895 RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF
[Syllabus]
821 MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP.
[Syllabus]
783 ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
755 LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
[Syllabus]
Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
744
[Syllabus]
727
[Syllabus]
723
[Syllabus]
723 FOX V. VICE
[Syllabus]
678 COHEN V. DE LA CRUZ, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)
[Syllabus]
674 COMMISSIONER V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
625 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
622 SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI
[Syllabus]
Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
590 BUCKHANNON BOARD & CARE HOME, INC. V. WESTVIRGINIA DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
[Syllabus]
The "catalyst theory," which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct, is not a permissible basis for the award of attorney's fees under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
559 PERDUE V. KENNY A.
[Syllabus]
552
[Syllabus]
482
[Syllabus]
468
[Syllabus]
458
[Syllabus]
433
[Syllabus]
433 NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
381
[Syllabus]
381 BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993).
[Syllabus]
381 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. V. BAZZLE
[Syllabus]
Whether the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.1et seq., prohibits class-action procedures from being superimposed onto an arbitration agreement that does not provide for class action arbitration.
381 PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN
[Syllabus]
Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
360
[Syllabus]
360 WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Syllabus]
311 COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER
[Syllabus]
Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
311 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS. CO. V. KNUDSON
[Syllabus]
Because petitioners are seeking legal relief-the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money-this action is not authorized by §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which prescribes a suit for "appropriate equitable relief."
241 PEGRAM V. HERDRICH
[Syllabus]
Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
241 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTHSERVS. V. GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE OF KEFFELER
[Syllabus]
Washington State's use of respondent foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse the State for expenses in caring for respondents did not violate 42 U. S. C. §407(a).
241 KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997).
[Syllabus]
241
[Syllabus]
241 MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995).
[Syllabus]
241 PRESTON V. FERRER
[Syllabus]
241
[Syllabus]
241
[Syllabus]
241 BREUER V. JIMS CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
241 RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS
[Syllabus]