U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1986

Underwood v. Pierce

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 15, 1986

802 F.2d 1107 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mary S. Burdick, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees., James R. Madison, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae., Sheila Lieber, Robert Greenspan, Merril Hirsh, Attys., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Buchanan v. United States (District Court, D. Oregon 1990)
TAYLOR, Catherine D., Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services (3d Cir. 1988)
George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen (9th Cir. 1987)
Underwood v. Pierce (9th Cir. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

The opinion appearing at 761 F.2d 1342 is amended as follows: Section VI, commencing on page 1347, is modified by retaining the first paragraph, eliminating the remainder of the section, and substituting the following:

The Supreme Court recently has expressed caution as to the use of multipliers in calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3096-3100, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). We need not decide in this case whether the use of a multiplier is permissible under the statutory language of the EAJA or under the recent Supreme Court authority. We conclude that compensation for the special factors involved in this case was adequately provided for by the allowance of the hourly rates in excess of the $75.00 specified in the statute.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.