federal lodestar test in Wyoming

2025See, e.g., Weiss v. Weiss, 2009 WY 124, ¶ 8 , 217 P.3d 408, 410-11 (Wyo. 2009) (stating our district courts are to follow the federal lodestar test for determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees).

2025See, e.g., Weiss v. Weiss, 2009 WY 124, ¶ 8 , 217 P.3d 408, 410-11 (Wyo. 2009) (stating our district courts are to follow the federal lodestar test for determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees).

2013Additionally, even if fees are provided by a valid contractual provision, "a trial court has the discretion to exercise its equitable control to allow only such sum as is reasonable or the court may properly disallow attorney's fees altogether on the basis that such recovery would be inequitable." Dewey v. Wentland, 2002 WY 2, ¶ 50 , 38 P.3d 402, 420 (Wyo.2002).

2013Additionally, even if fees are provided by a valid contractual provision, "a trial court has the discretion to exercise its equitable control to allow only such sum as is reasonable or the court may properly disallow attorney's fees altogether on the basis that such recovery would be inequitable." Dewey v. Wentland, 2002 WY 2, ¶ 50 , 38 P.3d 402, 420 (Wyo.2002).

2009"The two factors which are examined under the lodestar test are: '(1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward" Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 (quoting Johnston v. Stephenson, 938 P.2d 861, 862-63 (Wyo.1997)).

2007"The two factors which are examined under the lodestar test are: '(1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward." " Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 (quoting Johnston v. Stephenson, 938 P.2d 861, 862-62 (Wyo.1997)).

2023See Levy, ¶ 13, 483 P.3d at 856 (“Although the plain meaning of ‘proceeding’ includes a lawsuit, a lawsuit is not required for a party to be entitled to his fees under the easement’s fee-shifting provision because it allows fees ‘whether suit is brought or not.’” We need not decide, however, what type of “‘non-lawsuit’” proceedings are contemplated by the provision because Mr. Levy brought a lawsuit.”). 7 issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’” Id. (quoting Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 ) (citation and internal quotations omitted). [¶26] When considering the reasonableness o

2023See Levy, ¶ 13, 483 P.3d at 856 (“Although the plain meaning of ‘proceeding’ includes a lawsuit, a lawsuit is not required for a party to be entitled to his fees under the easement’s fee-shifting provision because it allows fees ‘whether suit is brought or not.’” We need not decide, however, what type of “‘non-lawsuit’” proceedings are contemplated by the provision because Mr. Levy brought a lawsuit.”). 7 issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’” Id. (quoting Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 ) (citation and internal quotations omitted). [¶26] When considering the reasonableness o

2024Stat. Ann. § 1-14-126 (LexisNexis 2023); see also Hensel v. DAPCPA RPO LLC, 2023 WY 84, ¶ 26 , 534 P.3d 460, 467 (Wyo. 2023) (“When considering the reasonableness of the fees requested, Wyoming courts apply the federal lodestar test, which requires a determination of (1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2024Stat. Ann. § 1-14-126 (LexisNexis 2023); see also Hensel v. DAPCPA RPO LLC, 2023 WY 84, ¶ 26 , 534 P.3d 460, 467 (Wyo. 2023) (“When considering the reasonableness of the fees requested, Wyoming courts apply the federal lodestar test, which requires a determination of (1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2023See Levy, ¶ 13, 483 P.3d at 856 (“Although the plain meaning of ‘proceeding’ includes a lawsuit, a lawsuit is not required for a party to be entitled to his fees under the easement’s fee-shifting provision because it allows fees ‘whether suit is brought or not.’” We need not decide, however, what type of “‘non-lawsuit’” proceedings are contemplated by the provision because Mr. Levy brought a lawsuit.”). 7 issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’” Id. (quoting Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 ) (citation and internal quotations omitted). [¶26] When considering the reasonableness o

2023See also, Circle C Res., ¶ 23, 530 P.3d at 295 .

2023See Levy, ¶ 13, 483 P.3d at 856 (“Although the plain meaning of ‘proceeding’ includes a lawsuit, a lawsuit is not required for a party to be entitled to his fees under the easement’s fee-shifting provision because it allows fees ‘whether suit is brought or not.’” We need not decide, however, what type of “‘non-lawsuit’” proceedings are contemplated by the provision because Mr. Levy brought a lawsuit.”). 7 issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’” Id. (quoting Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 ) (citation and internal quotations omitted). [¶26] When considering the reasonableness o

2023See Levy, ¶ 13, 483 P.3d at 856 (“Although the plain meaning of ‘proceeding’ includes a lawsuit, a lawsuit is not required for a party to be entitled to his fees under the easement’s fee-shifting provision because it allows fees ‘whether suit is brought or not.’” We need not decide, however, what type of “‘non-lawsuit’” proceedings are contemplated by the provision because Mr. Levy brought a lawsuit.”). 7 issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’” Id. (quoting Cline, 998 P.2d at 951 ) (citation and internal quotations omitted). [¶26] When considering the reasonableness o

2015Co., 741 P.2d 607, 609 (Wyo.1987) Greenough v. Prairie Dog Ranch, Inc., 531 P.2d 499, 503-04 (Wyo.1975). [T15] In determining the reasonableness of the fee request, Wyoming courts follow the federal lodestar test, which requires a determination of "(1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward." Weiss v. Weiss, 2009 WY 124, ¶ 8 , 217 P.3d 408, 410-11 (Wyo.2009), quoting Forshee v. Delaney, 2005 WY 103, ¶ 7 , 118 P.3d 445 ;

2015Co., 741 P.2d 607, 609 (Wyo.1987) Greenough v. Prairie Dog Ranch, Inc., 531 P.2d 499, 503-04 (Wyo.1975). [T15] In determining the reasonableness of the fee request, Wyoming courts follow the federal lodestar test, which requires a determination of "(1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward." Weiss v. Weiss, 2009 WY 124, ¶ 8 , 217 P.3d 408, 410-11 (Wyo.2009), quoting Forshee v. Delaney, 2005 WY 103, ¶ 7 , 118 P.3d 445 ;

2010In determining the reasonableness of the fees requested, our trial courts are to follow the federal lodestar test, which requires a determination of "(1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward." Id. at ¶ 7, at 448; Shepard v. Beck, 2007 WY 53 , ¶ 17 n. 5, 154 P.3d 982, 989 (Wyo.2007).

2010In determining the reasonableness of the fees requested, our trial courts are to follow the federal lodestar test, which requires a determination of "(1) whether the fee charged represents the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate; and (2) whether other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee either upward or downward." Id. at ¶ 7, at 448; Shepard v. Beck, 2007 WY 53 , ¶ 17 n. 5, 154 P.3d 982, 989 (Wyo.2007).