Charles Laduke, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Alan C. Nelson, Etc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (August 07, 1986)

Docket number: 83-3608,84-4148

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/charles-laduke-plaintiffs-alan-nelson-etc-37111167
Id. vLex: VLEX-37111167

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Charles Laduke, Et Al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Alan C. Nelson, Etc., Et Al., Defendants/Appellants., 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Raymon Velazquez, Et Al., Plaintiff, v. National Presto Industries, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Raymon Velazquez, Et Al., Plaintiff, v. National Presto Industries, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 884 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1989)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - in Re Arizona Appetito'S Stores, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Debtor. Arizona Appetito'S Stores, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Appellant, v. Paradise Village Investment Company, an Arizona Limited Partnership; Westcor Company Limited Partnership, Appellees., 893 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Roberto Rojas, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry Boyles, Respondent-Appellee., 962 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5495, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8902 Douglas M. Hartman, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. Summers, Respondent-Appellee., 120 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1997)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 31 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 296, Unempl.Ins.Rep. Cch 15572a Leola Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, * Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee., 916 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 49 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 323, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,880 Charles G. Criswell, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Eugene R. Black, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 869 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1989)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victor Geroya Mcmillan, Defendant-Appellee., 5 F.3d 542 (9th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Farmers & Merchants State Bank, an Idaho Banking Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Western Bank, an Oregon Banking Corporation, Defendant-Appellant., 841 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1988)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Mychelle Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 876 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1989)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Spokane, Defendant-Appellant., 918 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1990)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Michael J. Fox, Skellenger, Ginsberg & Bender, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Marshall Tamal Golding, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.

Before FARRIS, ALARCON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir.1985), filed June 10, 1985, is modified as follows:

The last sentence of the first full paragraph of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1321, is changed to: "We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand."

The fifth full paragraph on 762 F.2d at 1333, which begins "Finally," is deleted. The following paragraphs are substituted:

"Finally, the INS charges that the hourly fee award ($100 and $125) to class counsel unreasonably exceeded the normal fee of $75 per hour under the EAJA. The EAJA authorizes exceeding the $75 'cap' on attorney fees based on either a cost of living increase or a 'special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings.' 28 U.S.C. Sec . 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). The court did not abuse its discretion in finding a special factor existed for breaching the $75 cap based on expert testimony. Accord Action on Smoking and Health v. CAB, 724 F.2d 211, 219 (D.C.Cir.1984). Accordingly, we affirm the award of attorney's fees and the hourly rates.

"We vacate the district court's use of the 20% multiplier, however, and remand the issue of the propriety of a multiplier to the district court for such further proceedings, findings, and orders as it may deem necessary in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Library of Congress v. Shaw, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2957, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986); City of Riverside v. Rivera, --- U.S ----, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986)."

Section IV. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1333, is changed to: "We affirm the district court's issuance of an amended injunction and the award of fees and costs and the hourly rates, but vacate and remand the use of the 20% multiplier."