Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Friolo v. Frankelgreen2 sentences2016It explained that the first step is to engage in a lodestar analysis by “ ‘multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation ... by a reasonable hourly rate” ’ ” to “ ‘arrive at a “useful starting point.” ’ ” (Quoting Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443, 453-54 , 942 A.2d 1242 (2008) (“Friolo II ”), in turn quoting Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 523 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003) (“Friolo I”)). 2016It explained that the first step is to engage in a lodestar analysis by “ ‘multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation ... by a reasonable hourly rate” ’ ” to “ ‘arrive at a “useful starting point.” ’ ” (Quoting Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443, 453-54 , 942 A.2d 1242 (2008) (“Friolo II ”), in turn quoting Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 523 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003) (“Friolo I”)). | 3 | 5 |
Friolo v. Frankelgreen2 sentences2020Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Hamilton, 416 Md. at 337 (stating that “there is likely to be some overlap between the Rule 1.5 factors and the mitigating factors typically considered in a lodestar analysis”); Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. at 527 (stating that “most” of the factors under Rule 1.5 are “identical or similar” to the lodestar factors). 2020Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Hamilton, 416 Md. at 337 (stating that “there is likely to be some overlap between the Rule 1.5 factors and the mitigating factors typically considered in a lodestar analysis”); Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. at 527 (stating that “most” of the factors under Rule 1.5 are “identical or similar” to the lodestar factors). | 2 | 7 |
Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass'n v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2025For example, the Supreme Court has approved a list of twelve factors to be considered in a lodestar analysis in federal court[.]” Monmouth Meadows, 416 Md. at 333-34 (emphasis added). 2020Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Hamilton, 416 Md. at 337 (stating that “there is likely to be some overlap between the Rule 1.5 factors and the mitigating factors typically considered in a lodestar analysis”); Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. at 527 (stating that “most” of the factors under Rule 1.5 are “identical or similar” to the lodestar factors). | 2 | 2 |
Hensley v. Eckerhartgreen2 sentences2020For a list of Maryland’s policy-driven, fee-shifting statutes, see John Henderson, Attorney’s Fees, in MARYLAND EMPLOYMENT LAW DESKBOOK 935 (Maryland State Bar Ass’n 2016). 26 The lodestar factors include: (1) the time and labor required (the judge should weigh the hours claimed against his or her own knowledge, experience, and expertise and, if more 34 When a party “has obtained ‘excellent results,’ the attorney should recover ‘a fully compensatory fee.’” Id. at 525-26 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983)). 2018Most of them are identical or similar to the factors enumerated in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, supra, 488 F.2d 714 , which the Hensley [ v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ] Court indicated were relevant even in a lodestar analysis." Friolo I , 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 . | 1 | 5 |
cluster 315529green2 sentences2018Most of them are identical or similar to the factors enumerated in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, supra, 488 F.2d 714 , which the Hensley [ v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ] Court indicated were relevant even in a lodestar analysis." Friolo I , 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 . 2018Most of them are identical or similar to the factors enumerated in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, supra, 488 F.2d 714 , which the Hensley [ v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ] Court indicated were relevant even in a lodestar analysis." Friolo I , 373 Md. at 527 , 819 A.2d 354 . | 1 | 4 |
Manor Country Club v. Flaagreen2 sentences2005If the court determines that an award of attorney’s fees and costs is appropriate under the UCCJEA, it should determine whether a lodestar analysis applies in light of Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003), and Manor Country Club v. Flaa, 387 Md. 297, 300 , 874 A.2d 1020 (2005) (concluding that, “when attorney’s fees are permitted by statute or ordinance, the lodestar approach to the calculation of reasonable attorney’s fees is generally the correct approach, except in instances where other criteria for the calculation of such fees are provided ... in the fee-shifting statute”). 2005If the court determines that an award of attorney’s fees and costs is appropriate under the UCCJEA, it should determine whether a lodestar analysis applies in light of Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501 , 819 A.2d 354 (2003), and Manor Country Club v. Flaa, 387 Md. 297, 300 , 874 A.2d 1020 (2005) (concluding that, “when attorney’s fees are permitted by statute or ordinance, the lodestar approach to the calculation of reasonable attorney’s fees is generally the correct approach, except in instances where other criteria for the calculation of such fees are provided ... in the fee-shifting statute”). | 1 | 2 |
Thomas Barrow v. Lloyd A. Falck, Individually and as Sheriff of Ford County, Illinois, and Ford County, Illinoisgreen1 sentence2011The very concept of hourly compensation inherently accounts for preclusion of other employment because it represents the attorney’s “opportunity cost” of time and labor. 18 See Barrow v. Falck, 977 F.2d 1100, 1105 (7th Cir.1992) (“Judges must stick to the market rate for the attorneys’ time-that is to say, the opportunity costs of their time, the rate they could receive in other engagements.”); Modern Dictionary for the Legal Profession (3d ed.2001) (defining “Opportunity Cost” as “Economic value of a benefit that is foregone when one alternative is selected rather than another”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Admiral Mortgage, Inc. v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2011Parroting what we said in Admiral Mortgage, Inc., however, in directing that remand, “we do not suggest that the amount of the fee awarded ... in this case was *94 inappropriate.” Admiral Mortgage, Inc., 357 Md. at 553 , 745 A.2d at 1036 .[ 9 ] In addition to the other considerations that are part of the overall lodestar analysis, the court will need to consider that, with respect to the bonuses, awardable for fee-shifting purposes only under § 3-507.1, the jury made no predicate finding of a lack of a bona fide dispute. 2011Parroting what we said in Admiral Mortgage, Inc., however, in directing that remand, “we do not suggest that the amount of the fee awarded ... in this case was *94 inappropriate.” Admiral Mortgage, Inc., 357 Md. at 553 , 745 A.2d at 1036 .[ 9 ] In addition to the other considerations that are part of the overall lodestar analysis, the court will need to consider that, with respect to the bonuses, awardable for fee-shifting purposes only under § 3-507.1, the jury made no predicate finding of a lack of a bona fide dispute. | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Hyundai Motor America v. Alley
green
1 sentence2020For a list of Maryland’s policy-driven, fee-shifting statutes, see John Henderson, Attorney’s Fees, in MARYLAND EMPLOYMENT LAW DESKBOOK 935 (Maryland State Bar Ass’n 2016). 26 The lodestar factors include: (1) the time and labor required (the judge should weigh the hours claimed against his or her own knowledge, experience, and expertise and, if more 34 When a party “has obtained ‘excellent results,’ the attorney should recover ‘a fully compensatory fee.’” Id. at 525-26 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Frankel v. Friolo
green
2 sentences2011First, we held that appellees were correct in that the court erred as a matter of law, and we therefore vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case so that the circuit *97 court could “apply the lodestar analysis and provide a clear explanation of the factors employed in arriving at its award.” Id. at 451 , 907 A.2d 363 . 2011First, we held that appellees were correct in that the court erred as a matter of law, and we therefore vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case so that the circuit *97 court could “apply the lodestar analysis and provide a clear explanation of the factors employed in arriving at its award.” Id. at 451 , 907 A.2d 363 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
City of Riverside v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2011Friolo thus concluded that the circuit court had erred by failing to consider or discuss the lodestar factors set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), and by relying instead on “an entirely irrelevant factor, awarding fees based on a percentage of the jury’s verdict.” (Emphasis in original.) Concluding this point, Friolo argued that “settled law holds that fees exceeding the amount of the judgment may nevertheless be reasonable,” citing Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 , 106 S.Ct. 2686 , 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986). 2011Friolo thus concluded that the circuit court had erred by failing to consider or discuss the lodestar factors set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 430 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), and by relying instead on “an entirely irrelevant factor, awarding fees based on a percentage of the jury’s verdict.” (Emphasis in original.) Concluding this point, Friolo argued that “settled law holds that fees exceeding the amount of the judgment may nevertheless be reasonable,” citing Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 , 106 S.Ct. 2686 , 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Blanchard v. Bergeron
green
2 sentences2010Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 , 91 n. 5, 109 S.Ct. 939 , 943 n. 5, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989) (citing Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 , 717-19 (1974)). 2010Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 , 91 n. 5, 109 S.Ct. 939 , 943 n. 5, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989) (citing Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 , 717-19 (1974)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Flaa v. Manor Country Club
green
2 sentences2005That fact alone leads us to conclude that the Panel committed legal error in calculating the fee award and that the case must be remanded for a determination of the lodestar.” Flaa, 158 Md.App. at 497 , 857 A.2d at 612-18 . 2005That fact alone leads us to conclude that the Panel committed legal error in calculating the fee award and that the case must be remanded for a determination of the lodestar.” Flaa, 158 Md.App. at 497 , 857 A.2d at 612-18 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.