Morales v. City of San Rafael, 94-15523
| Decision Date | 13 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-15523,94-15523 |
| Parties | Juan Manuel MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and Daniel Hulett, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
The order filed January 13, 1997, is ordered PUBLISHED.
ORDER
The opinion filed September 6, 1996, is amended as follows:
1) In the reported opinion, at 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir.1996), add the following sentence to the end of the first partial paragraph:
"Nominal damages" is not limited to an award in the amount of $1, but includes an award that may properly be classified as "de minimis."
With this amendment to the opinion, a majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor or rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., s. 94-36116
...108 F.3d 981 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1339, 97 Daily D.A.R. 2016 CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Nos. 94-36116, 94-36156. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued......
-
Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc., C01-3015-MWB.
...subsumed in the lodestar calculation." Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363-64 (9th Cir.1996), amended on other grounds, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.1997) (emphasis It is the court's opinion that counsel's $200 hourly rate is adequate compensation for Mr. Parker's services in this matt......
-
Black v. Akins (In re Akins), Case No. 18-25001-E-7
...of a professional's fees is the "Lodestar Calculation." Morales v. City of San Rafael , 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997). Additionally, California courts use the Lodestar method. Ketchum v. Moses , 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1133-36, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 17 P.3......
-
Choate v. County of Orange, G020621.
...no fees. Farrar encompasses any de minimis damage award. (See, e.g., Morales v. City of San Rafael (9th Cir.1996) 96 F.3d 359, mod. 108 F.3d 981 ["`Nominal damages' is not limited to an award in the amount of $1, but includes an award that may properly be classified as `de minimis'" ]; Adam......
-
Money matters: judicial market interventions creating subsidies and awarding fees and costs in individual and aggregate litigation.
..."de minimis" awards in a case in which a "significant nonmonetary result" for the individual and the community was achieved), amended by, 108 F. 3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997); Krumme v. Westpoint Stevens Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 297, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (declining, in a lawsuit contesting rights under......