Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Myrna Underwood, Sheila Fazande, Annie Johnson, Jeromesmith, Cora Ewers, Frances Jardin, Lura R. Stentz, Charlottewest, Aritisha Mcgee, Individually and on Behalf of Allothers Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urbandevelopment, Defendant- Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 802 F.2d 1107
Oct. 15, 1986
Mary S. Burdick, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
James R. Madison, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae.
Sheila Lieber, Robert Greenspan, Merril Hirsh, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Harry Pregerson, Circuit Judge, Sitting by Designation.
Before HUG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL*, District Judge.
ORDER
The opinion appearing at 761 F.2d 1342 is amended as follows: Section VI, commencing on page 1347, is modified by retaining the first paragraph, eliminating the remainder of the section, and substituting the following:
The Supreme Court recently has expressed caution as to the use of multipliers in calculating reasonable attorneys' fees. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3096-3100, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). We need not decide in this case whether the use of a multiplier is permissible under the statutory language of the EAJA or under the recent Supreme Court authority. We conclude that compensation for the special factors involved in this case was adequately provided for by the allowance of the hourly rates in excess of the $75.00 specified in the statute.