Ronald E. Spears v. W.E. Johnson, Warden (1989)
green
· 53 citation events
across 16 courts.
Showing the 20 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198920072026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Got I, LLC v. XRT, Inc, e al. (2020)
While it is true that some of our cases have said that, generally, we review a district court’s grant or denial of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., In re Application to Adjudge Trinity Indus., 876 F.2d 1485, 1495 (11th Cir. 1989), we note that this determination was made in the context of Rule 11 sanctions, not in the context of a contractual attorney’s fee provision.
green
Aetna Group USA, Inc., vs Aidco International, Inc. (2011)
In re Trinity Indus., Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Abdul Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood Inc. (2010)
Matter of Trinity Indus., Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Robert K. v. Cobb County School District (2008)
In re Application to Adjudge Trinity Indus., Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance v. Escambia County (2002)
In re Application to Adjudge Trini *734 ty Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Jove Engineering, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (1996)
Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir.1991); In re Trinity Industries, 876 F.2d 1485, 1493 (11th Cir.1989).
green
National Engineering & Contracting Company v. Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission (1995)
We decline to follow Brock in this regard and note, echoing the Eleventh Circuit, "no other circuit requires OSHA to append such documents to its warrant applications." Trinity, 876 F.2d at 1492.
green
National Engineering & Contracting Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1995)
We decline to follow Brock in this regard and note, echoing the Eleventh Circuit, “no other circuit requires OSHA to append such documents to its warrant applications.” Trinity, 876 F.2d at 1492.
Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1493 (11th Cir. 1989).
SEC v. Detroit Mem’l Partners, 2016 WL 1169484 , at *1 (quoting In re Trinity Indus., Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1495 (11th Cir. 1989)).
green
McCray v. Dawson (1996)
Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1493 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Cullens v. Georgia Department of Transportation (1993)
A downward adjustment may be appropriate if the result was “partial or limited success.” Id; Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1495 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins (1991)
See Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1493 (11th Cir.1989).
See Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1493 (11th Cir.1989).
green
Dole v. Trinity Industries, Inc. (1990)
Accord, Matter of Trinity Industries, 876 F.2d 1485, 1492 (11th Cir.1989); Pennsylvania Steel Foundry and Machine Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 831 F.2d 1211, 1215 (3rd Cir.1987); Donovan v. Trinity Industries, 824 F.2d 634 , 636 (8th Cir.1987); Donovan v. Hackney, Inc., 769 F.2d 650, 653 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1081 , 106 S.Ct. 1458 , 89 L.Ed.2d 715 (1985); Donovan v. Enterprise Foundry, 751 F.2d 30, 33 (1st Cir.1984); Stoddard Lumber Co. v. Marshall, 627 F.2d 984,…
See Matter of Trinity Indus., 876 F.2d at 1493–94. appearance, and then be required to appear before this Court, to be held in custody until Judgment Debtor Kimsey Meharg fully and completely responds to Judgment Creditor’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production in Aid of Execution [DE 314-1], or until further Order of the Court, with the writ of bodily attachment, “pickup order,” or arrest warrant, becoming effective after a period of thirty (30) days from …
green
Su v. Arps (2023)
Jan. 29, 2021) (citing Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 108 (2017)); see also Matter of Trinity Indus., Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir. 1989) (indicating Secretary may be entitled to attorney’s fees as a contempt sanction in OSHA subpoena enforcement proceedings).
indicating Secretary may be entitled to attorney’s fees as a contempt sanction in OSHA subpoena enforcement proceedings
green
Matter of Concrete Products, Inc. (1996)
“If the result was partial or limited success, then the lodestar must be reduced to an amount that is not excessive.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302 ; See Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1495 (11th Cir.1989).
See Matter of Trinity Industries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1494 (11th Cir.1989); NOW v. Operation Rescue, 747 F.Supp. at 774 .
green
Knagge v. Sullivan (1990)
Barring such proof, the Court must ignore the contingency fee agreement and apply the lodestar method, see Sumners v. Sullivan, 730 F.Supp. 99 (M.D.Tenn.1989) (finding contingency fee presumption rebutted and using lodestar method instead), with the burden on counsel to demonstrate the reasonable hourly rate of compensation and the time reasonably expended, see Perkins v. Mobile Housing Bd., 847 F.2d 735 (11th Cir.1988); Norman v. Housing Auth., 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir.1988)…