green
Positive treatment
12.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Sullivant, Jr. v. Swayze Alford, et al.
(2×)
The first step is for courts to use the lodestar method, a well-established process whereby “the number of hours reasonably expended” is “multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work.” Hobbs v. Evo, Inc., 7 F.4th 241, 259 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Combs, 62 F.3d at 392).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunn v. Miller
Appx. 799, 800 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citing Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966)) (collecting cases)); accord Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975); Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86-87 (5th Cir. 1982); Easley v. Easley, 62 F.3d 392 , 1995 WL 449817, at *1 (5th Cir. June 28, 1995) (per curiam) (precedential under 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3 as an unpublished opinion issued prior to Jan. 1, 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rakestraw v. Cadence Bank
(2×)
The first step is for courts to use the lodestar method, a well-established process whereby the number of hours reasonably expended” is “multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate in the community for similar work.” Hobbs v. Evo, Inc., 7 F.4th 241, 259 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Combs, 62 F.3d at 392).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. 195th JDC
(2×)
See Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 791 (1966). _____________________ 1 Compare Texas v. Gulf Water Benefaction Co., 679 F.2d 85, 86 (5th Cir. 1982) (affirming remand on the merits when the removal petition “merely complain[ed] in a conclusory way of deprivations of certain . . . non-race-related civil rights”), and Williams v. Nichols, 464 F.2d 563, 564 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (same), with Flitsch v. Guardino, No. 22-20247, 2023 WL 4015125 , at *1 (5th Cir. June 13, 2023) (per curiam) (“We have repeatedly held that when a defendant’s attempted removal lacks even the barest conne…
cited
Cited "see"
RLIS, Inc. v. Cerner Corp.
See Martinez v. Union Carbide Corp., 62 F.3d 392, at *2 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that a continuance would not cure the significant prejudice from “last-minute efforts to designate” new witnesses).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Scott v. Vital Core Strategies
Apr. 10, 2014); see also Martinez v. Union Carbide Corp., 62 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 1995) (table), 1995 WL 449829, at *1-3 ; Johnson v. Lee, 17 So. 3d 1140, 1142-43 (Miss.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Easley
v.
Easley
v.
Easley
95-20018.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 28, 1995.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published