Supreme Court of the United States
Martin v. Hadix
June 21, 1999527 U.S. 343
Summary
The Court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s fee‑cap provision applies only to post‑judgment monitoring services performed after the Act’s effective date and does not limit fees for services performed before that date, affirming in part and reversing in part the Sixth Circuit. Justice Ginsburg dissented in part, arguing the fee‑cap should not apply at all to pending cases, while Justice Scalia concurred in part and in the judgment.
Holding
- Whether § 803(d)(3) of the PLRA applies retroactively to attorney‑fee awards for post‑judgment monitoring services performed before the Act’s effective date in cases pending when the Act was enacted.. The PLRA does not limit attorney’s fees for post‑judgment monitoring services performed before the effective date; applying the fee‑cap would be impermissibly retroactive.
- Whether the PLRA fee‑cap applies to post‑judgment monitoring services performed after the Act’s effective date in cases pending when the Act was enacted.. The PLRA’s fee‑cap applies to post‑judgment monitoring services performed after April 26, 1996.
Docket 98-262
Cited authorities
- Rule 83.20(j)
- Rule 1.3
- Rule 1.16(b)(5)
- Rule 1.16
- Rule 1.16(c)
- 110 Stat. 1321
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Cited by
- Michael Moe & others v. Sex Offender Registry Board
- Jose Raul Castillo Francisco Lopez E. Eloy Sanchez Jon Alan Ashcraft Gustavo Almaguer v. Cameron County, Texas…
- The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee v. Daniel Ramsey, Appellant
- Tasfa Wolde Wallace, Appellee v. Janet Reno, Appellants; Carlos Alberto Lemos, Petitioner, Appellant, V…
- Dwight W. Mattis, Petitioner, Appellant v. Janet Reno
- Jose Costa, Petitioner v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent
- In Re Bankvest Capital Corp., Debtor. Eagle Insurance Company and Newark Insurance Company, Appellants v. Bankvest…
- Azzedine Lattab, Petitioner v. John Ashcroft