Supreme Court of the United States
City of Burlington v. Dague
June 24, 1992505 U.S. 557
Summary
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, held that the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Clean Water Act do not permit enhancing a lodestar attorney's fee to compensate for the risk of nonpayment associated with contingent representation. It reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment insofar as it upheld the 25% enhancement. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, arguing that reasonable fees should reflect market compensation for contingency and that prohibiting enhancements would undermine enforcement of federal rights. Justice O'Connor separately dissented, maintaining that market-based contingency enhancements are permissible but that the case-specific enhancement here required vacatur and remand for a market-based assessment.
Holding
- Availability of contingency enhancements under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Clean Water Act fee-shifting provisions.. The fee-shifting provisions do not permit enhancement of the lodestar for contingency risk.
Docket 91-810
Cited authorities
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
- Rule 1.5(a)(8)
- 90 Stat. 2826
- 42 U.S.C. § 6972
- 86 Stat. 889
- 33 U.S.C. § 1365
- 42 U.S.C. § 6972
- 33 U.S.C. § 1365
Cited by
- Chapman v. Jacobs
- Cortes v. Kern County Superintendent
- Salgado v. T-Mobile USA, Inc
- Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc.
- Frederick Michele Brady v. Patenaude & Felix, A Professional Corporation
- In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
- El Apple I, Ltd. v. Myriam Olivas
- Fairmont Specialty Insurance Company v. Thomas Apodaca