Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Courts have developed several means of reviewing the reasonableness of fee requests in class actions. At the dawn of the class action era, the most frequently used device was the lodestar method, which was developed by this Court in Lindy Brothers Builders, Inc. of Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973). Under that approach, the court assesses the number of hours that lead counsel reasonably worked, decides the reasonable hourly rate for the lawyers' services, and determines counsel's fee by multiplying the number of hours reasonably worked by the reasonable hourly rate. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate jurisprudence covering the proper application of the lodestar method, which remains the governing approach for cases governed by fee-shifting statutes. See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40, 103 S. Ct. 1933 (1983); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891, 104 S. Ct. 1541 (1984); Webb v.  Board of Educ. of Dyer County, 471 U.S. 234, 85 L. Ed. 2d 233, 105 S. Ct. 1923 (1985); City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 91 L. Ed. 2d 466, 106 ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students