Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff
Argued March 19, 2008
Decided June 2, 2008
Full case nameRichlin Security Service Company, petitioner
v
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Docket no.06-717
Citations553 U.S. 571 (more)
128 S. Ct. 2007; 170 L. Ed. 2d 960; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4522; 76 U.S.L.W. 4360; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 279
ArgumentOral argument
Holding
A prevailing party that satisfies EAJA's other requirements mayrecover its paralegal fees from the Government at prevailing market rates. 472 F. 3d 1370, reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinion
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer; Scalia (except Part III–A); Thomas (except Parts II–B and III)
Laws applied
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. § 2412

Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States evaluated standards for awarding attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.[1] After it prevailed in a lawsuit for back wages, Richlin filed an application for reimbursement of fees and expenses from the lawsuit, including 523.8 hours of paralegal work.[2] Richlin requested the paralegal fees at the market rate for the services, rather than at the cost to the law firm that represented Richlin.[3] The Department of Transportation's Board of Contract Appeals ruled that recovery of fees should be limited to the cost to the attorneys, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's determination.[4] In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that parties are entitled to reimbursement for services at prevailing market rates.[5]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 573 (2008).
  2. ^ Richlin Security Service Co., 553 U.S. at 574 (citing 5 U. S. C. § 504(a)(1) (the application was filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1)).
  3. ^ Richlin Security Service Co., 553 U.S. at 574-75.
  4. ^ Richlin Security Service Co., 553 U.S. at 574-75.
  5. ^ Richlin Security Service Co., 553 U.S. at 583-84.

External links[edit]