green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.9 score
“the 18 district court . . . adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar figure on the 19 basis of the kerr factors that are not already subsumed in the initial lodestar 20 calculation”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Paeste v. Government Of Guam
the 18 district court . . . adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar figure on the 19 basis of the kerr factors that are not already subsumed in the initial lodestar 20 calculation
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Decollibus v. Rubus Management, LLC
See 28 https://fid.nv.gov/Resources/Fees and Prime Interest Rate/. 1 F.3d 1145 , 1149 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 2 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 108 F.3d 981 3 (9th Cir. 1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mincron SBC Corp. v. Worldcom, Inc.
COT asserted, and the Ninth Circuit Court agreed, that, even if COT’s claims were covered by the filed rate doctrine, the doctrine did not apply to any of COT’s claims regarding billing or provisioning. 108 F.3d at 990.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.
(8×)
The Ninth Circuit thought the filed rate doctrine inapplicable "[b]ecause this case does not involve rates or ratesetting, but rather involves the provisioning of services and billing." 108 F. 3d, at 990.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Suzanne Cahnmann, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sprint Corporation
The dissenting judge pointed out that AT & T was forbidden to offer nontariff services, so there could be no breach of contract claim based on the offer — because there could be no contract. 108 F.3d at 996.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
At & T Corp., a New York Corporation v. Fleming and Berkley, a Limited Partnership and Frederick J. Fleming, an Individual
Co., 108 F.3d at 990 (filed tariff doctrine does not apply where case did not involve rates or rate-setting, but provisioning of services and billing under several contracts). 45 Finally, even if the filed tariff doctrine does not apply to appellants' asserted common law defenses, the defenses do not enable appellants to survive summary judgment in this action.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
County Of Stanislaus v. Pacific Gas And Electric Company
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
We refused to apply the filed rate doctrine because "this case does not involve rates or rate setting." 108 F.3d at 990.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Stanislaus v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
We refused to apply the filed rate doctrine because “this case does not involve rates or rate setting.” 108 F.3d at 990.
discussed
Cited "see"
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
See Morales v. City of 19 San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 108 F.3d 981 20 (9th Cir. 1997); Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013). 21 22 5 Salesforce is also entitled to costs incurred after the Court’s Claim Construction Order, with the exact amount to be determined following the Clerk’s re-taxation of costs. 23 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, (Dkt. 3 || 409); (Dkt. 412), are GRANTED.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency
See Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 , 364 n. 9 (9th Cir.1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 981 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc.
See Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. AT & T, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that the filed rate doctrine is inapplicable in a breach of contract dispute); Columbia Steel Casting Co. v. Portland General Elec.
cited
Cited "see"
Stein v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.
See Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. AT & T, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.1997) (filed rate doctrine inapplicable in breach of contract dispute); Columbia Steel Casting Co. v. Portland General Elec.
discussed
Cited "see"
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. GTE Northwest, Inc.
See Central Office Tel., Inc. v. AT & T, Civil No. 91-1236-JE (D.Or.1994), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.1997), rev’d in part, 524 U.S. 214 , 118 S.Ct. 1956 , 141 L.Ed.2d 222 (1998) 1 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Acuna v. Regents of University of California
See Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir.1996), amended on other grounds, 108 F.3d 981 (1997). 7 In determining a reasonable fee, a district court is required to consider the "results obtained." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dunsmore v. State of California
See e.g., Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 , 23 363 (9th Cir. 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997) 24 (“The customary method of determining fees . . . is known as the lodestar method.”); see 25 also Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214, 222 (9th Cir. 2013) (“In general, 26 California courts, like their federal counterparts, utilize the lodestar . . . approach to 27 determine a proper fee award to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights law suit.”) 28 1 “The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. JB Collision Services, Inc.
Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 2004 WL 2284001 , at *12; see also Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 108 F.3d 981, 993 (9th Cir.1997) (reversed on other grounds).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Juan Manuel MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and Daniel Hulett, Defendants-Appellees
v.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and Daniel Hulett, Defendants-Appellees
94-15523.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 25, 1997.
ORDER
The order filed January 13, 1997, is ordered PUBLISHED.
ORDER
January 13, 1997
The opinion filed September 6, 1996, is amended as follows:
1) In the reported opinion, at 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir.1996), add the following sentence to the end of the first partial paragraph:
“Nominal damages” is not limited to an award in the amount of $1, but includes an award that may properly be classified as “de minimis.” ...
With this amendment to the opinion, a majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor or . rehearing en banc. Fed.RApp.P. 35.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.