Underwood v. Pierce
802 F.2d 1107
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 15, 1986·No. No. 83-5773·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Underwood v. Pierce, 802 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1986).
802 F.2d 1107 (Underwood v. Pierce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Buchanan v. United States
755 F. Supp. 319 (D. Oregon, 1990)
TAYLOR, Catherine D., Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services
835 F.2d 1037 (Third Circuit, 1988)
George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen
825 F.2d 1324 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Underwood v. Pierce
802 F.2d 1107 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)