Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Underwood v. Pierce

802 F.2d 1107

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1986-10-15
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Underwood v. Pierce. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
UNDERWOOD v. PIERCE,802 F.2d 1107(9th Cir. 1986)
MYRNA UNDERWOOD, SHEILA FAZANDE, ANNIE JOHNSON, JEROME SMITH, CORA EWERS,
FRANCES JARDIN, LURA R. STENTZ, CHARLOTTE WEST, ARITISHA McGEE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. SAMUEL R. PIERCE, JR., SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 83-5773.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 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 CARROLLfn*, District Judge.
[1] ORDER
[2] The opinion appearing at761 F.2d 1342is 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 ValleyCitizens' 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.
Page 1108
  1. The Honorable Earl H. Carroll, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. ↩