DOCSLIB.ORG

WHO PAYS? FINES, FEES, BAIL, and the COST of COURTS April 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WHO PAYS? FINES, FEES, BAIL, and the COST of COURTS April 2018 21 st Annual Liman Colloquium WHO PAYS? FINES, FEES, BAIL, AND THE COST OF COURTS Twenty-First Annual Liman Colloquium April 5 & 6, 2018 WHO PAYS? FINES, FEES, BAIL, AND THE COST OF COURTS COURTS OF THE COST AND FINES, FEES, BAIL, WHO PAYS? ©William Clift Crack, Jury Chairs, Warren County Courthouse, Warrenton, Missouri, 1974-1976 The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law co-sponsored by April 2018 The Class Action Litigation Fund The Robert H. Preiskel & Leon Silverman Fund Yale Law School WHO PAYS? FINES, FEES, BAIL, AND THE COST OF COURTS The Twenty-First Annual Liman Colloquium April 5 & 6, 2018 Sponsored by The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law The Class Action Litigation Fund The Robert H. Preiskel & Leon Silverman Fund Yale Law School Liman Colloquium 2018 Co-Editors Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Founding Director, Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law Anna VanCleave, Director, Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law Kristen Bell, Senior Liman Fellow in Residence Skylar Albertson, Yale Law School Class of 2018 Natalia Friedlander, Yale Law School Class of 2018 Illyana Green, Yale Law School Class of 2019 Michael Morse, Yale Law School Class of 2019 Revised April 18, 2018 i Liman Colloquium 2018 Preface In the last decades, growing numbers of people have sought to use courts, government budgets have declined, new technologies have emerged, arrest and detention rates have risen, and arguments have been leveled that private resolutions are preferable to public adjudication. Lawsuits challenge the legality of fee structures, money bail, and the imposition of fines. States have chartered task forces to propose changes, and new research has identified the effects of the current system on low-income communities and on people of color. The costs imposed through fees, surcharges, fines, and bail affect the ability of plaintiffs and defendants to seek justice and to be treated justly. This volume, prepared for the 21st Annual Arthur Liman Center Colloquium, explores the mechanisms for financing court systems and the economic challenges faced by judiciaries and by litigants. We address how constitutional democracies can meet their obligations to make justice accessible to disputants and to make fair treatment visible to the public. Our goals are to understand the dimensions of the problems, the inter- relationships among civil, criminal, and administrative processes, and the opportunities for generating the political will to bring about reform. Like the many Liman publications of the last two decades, these materials reflect the commitments of the Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law, which works to promote access to justice and fair treatment of individuals and groups seeking to use the legal system. This work began in 1997, when Yale Law School established what was then called the Arthur Liman Program to honor one of its most distinguished graduates. Arthur Liman spent much of his professional career at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, even as he also devoted years to work in the public sector, including as counsel to the New York State Special Commission on Attica and as counsel to the Senate Iran-Contra Committee. Liman also served as president of the Legal Aid Society of New York and of Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem, he was a trustee of the Vera Institute of Justice, chair of the New York State Capital Defender’s Office, and he was a founder of the Legal Action Center. That Arthur Liman was both wise and unusually smart marked him as an outstanding attorney. That he also cared passionately about social justice and devoted himself to its pursuit made him a great lawyer-citizen. Supported by the many family members and friends of the Liman family and Yale Law School, this Center is dedicated to ensuring that generations of public interest lawyers continue to combine expert lawyerly skills with public spiritedness. ii Liman Colloquium 2018 In 1997, we awarded one Liman Fellowship. We now award six to ten Fellowships annually. As of 2018, we have provided funding for 132 law graduates to spend a year working on behalf of individuals and communities with diverse needs. More than one hundred organizations have hosted Liman Fellows, and ninety percent of our former Fellows continue their work at nonprofits, in government, or in the academy. In addition, each year, the Center welcomes Summer Fellows, who are students enrolled at Barnard, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Harvard, Princeton, Spelman, Stanford, or Yale and who find placements, often with organizations that have employed Liman Fellows. Further, Senior Liman Fellows in Residence guide students on projects and co-teach classes. The Liman Center has also undertaken major research projects, including a series co-authored with the Association of State Correctional Administrators and focused on the use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons. Fellows have authored monographs on a range of issues emerging from their work, such as new research on the needs of veterans, immigrants, juveniles, and families. At Yale Law School, the Liman Center teaches a workshop each spring. Illustrative is this year’s seminar, Rationing Access to Justice in Democracies, which intersects with the 2018 Colloquium. In 2017, the class, Imprisoned, focused on the law of prisons and the history of movements aiming to limit the use of confinement. In short, through funding fellowships, annual colloquia, classes, and scholarship, the Liman Center follows in Arthur Liman’s tradition by devoting our energies and resources to working towards a justice that remains elusive. *** A word about preparation of this volume is also in order. Kristen Bell, who is one of the current Senior Fellows in Residence, played an important role in shaping the materials. And, we who are the faculty and directors of the Center, have the delight of working intensely with thoughtful, committed, insightful, and knowledgeable students, and hence to enjoy the pleasure of new colleagues. The members of the 2018 Liman Workshop have been extraordinarily engaged in exploring the problems of courts and litigants. The Liman Student Directors who are this volume’s co-editors—Skylar Albertson, Natalia Friedlander, Illyana Green, and Michael Morse—were at the center of finding and editing materials that span decades and continents and that illuminate the complexities of making justice systems accessible and fair. But for their work, this volume would not exist. We are also indebted to the many participants in the 2018 Colloquium who suggested materials, of which those reproduced are just a subset. To keep these readings to a manageable length, the excerpts have been extensively pruned; most footnotes and citations have been omitted. iii Liman Colloquium 2018 Special thanks are also in order to several people at Yale Law School. The Center’s good fortune is that Elizabeth Keane, who joined recently, is remarkable. She has coordinated, with grace and patience, so much of our work. But for her, we would not have been able to bring together the group of scholars, judges, politicians, policy analysts, litigators, and students to discuss the issues set out through these readings. Bonnie Posick is now deservedly famous for her expert editorial assistance and insights into shaping accessible materials. Adrienne Webb, Program Coordinator, Public Affairs, and Janet Conroy, Director of Communications & Public Affairs at Yale Law School, bring all our publications to completion. No introduction would be complete without acknowledging the pivotal role played by the Liman Director, Anna VanCleave, who left the New Orleans Public Defenders’ Capital Defense Division two years ago to be at the helm of the Center. She mixes agility at classroom teaching with wisdom as an advisor to current, future, and former fellows, and she juggles so many tasks to run the many and growing facets of the Center. Her kindness, insights, and leadership make all that we do possible. Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law Founding Director, the Liman Center March 28, 2018 iv Liman Colloquium 2018 Chapters I. Fines, Fees, Bail, and the Financing of Justice: Political Will and Paths to Reform II. Understanding the Challenges Faced by Low-Income Litigants III. Bail and Bond IV. The Consequences of Legal Debt V. Legal Theories of Mandates for Change: Litigating Economic Barriers to Courts VI. Political Will and Making Change VII. Alternative Financing and Alternative Norms v Liman Colloquium 2018 Table of Contents I. Fines, Fees, Bail, and the Financing of Justice: Political Will and Paths to Reform Democracies promise “open courts” and “access to justice,” but the costs of being involved in the courts have steadily risen. In both the civil and criminal legal systems, litigants have been subjected to an array of charges. This panel opens the 2018 Liman Colloquium by exploring the central questions: Who pays for courts? And what are the paths to reform? Hon. Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Address to the 85th Texas Legislature (Feb. 1, 2017) ...................................................... 1 Hon. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Partners in Justice for All, Address Before the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society (Sept. 8, 2017) ............................................................. 4 Nat’l Task Force on Fines, Fees, and Bail Practices, Nat’l Ctr. for State Courts, PRINCIPLES ON FINES, FEES, AND BAIL PRACTICES (Dec. 2017) ..... 9 Press Release, Office of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Gov. Malloy Signs Legislation Reforming the State’s Pretrial Justice System to Help Break the Cycle of Crime and Poverty: Systemic Reforms Provide Solutions to Pretrial Challenges that Discriminate Against the Poor (June 28, 2017) .............. 16 Alexes Harris, Heather Evans & Katherine Beckett, Drawing Blood from Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary United States, 115 AM. J. SOC. 1753 (2010) ......................................................................... 18 Judith Resnik, Courts and Economic and Social Rights/Courts as Economic and Social Rights, in THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS (Katharine G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Court Filing Fees
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. PURPOSES AND USES OF FEES Survey and The use of filing fees in this country had it.. origin in the English tradition of Analysis of compensating court officials from fees charged to litigants.s Since state and local governments started paying the Court Filing Fees salaries of judges and court clerks, how­ ever, two other justifications for the By E. Keith Stott. Jr., lind Richard N. Ross use of filing fees have been emphasized. III late 1975 tile National Cel/ter sta.!! Although the extent of judicial par­ The first is that filing fees deter frivo­ prepared a study of court }fling fees for ticipation in shaping the social order lous litigation, thereby controlling court tlte Missouri o'{lice of State Courts Ad­ and resolving private disputes has caseloads. Recent research has shown, ministrator. The study. a part oJ' a greatly increased during the past few however, that filing fees do not deter larger project to determine tile extent decades, adequate financing of state litigation because they are only a small alld <tI.Tect of court costs on litigatioJl. court opel'ations has never become a part of the overall cost of litigation. produced some illterestillg alld us<;jitl reality. Judges and court administrators Other court costs and expenses related iI{/'ormatioll that otller courts have sillce have engaged in difficult and frequently to litigation have a more important im­ requestedfor similar studies or projects unsuccessful competitions in the budget pact on the decision to file a lawsuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Awards of Attorneys' Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies
    Order Code 94-970 Awards of Attorneys’ Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies Updated June 20, 2008 Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division Awards of Attorneys’ Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies Summary In the United States, the general rule, which derives from common law, is that each side in a legal proceeding pays for its own attorney. There are many exceptions, however, in which federal courts, and occasionally federal agencies, may order the losing party to pay the attorneys’ fees of the prevailing party. The major common law exception authorizes federal courts (not agencies) to order a losing party that acts in bad faith to pay the prevailing party’s fees. There are also roughly two hundred statutory exceptions, which were generally enacted to encourage private litigation to implement public policy. Awards of attorneys’ fees are often designed to help to equalize contests between private individual plaintiffs and corporate or governmental defendants. Thus, attorneys’ fees provisions are most often found in civil rights, environmental protection, and consumer protection statutes. In addition, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) makes the United States liable for attorneys’ fees of up to $125 per hour in many court cases and administrative proceedings that it loses (and some that it wins) and fails to prove that its position was substantially justified. EAJA does not apply in tax cases, but a similar statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7430, does. Most Supreme Court decisions involving attorneys’ fees have interpreted civil rights statutes, and this report focuses on these statutes. It also discusses awards of costs other than attorneys’ fees in federal courts, how courts compute the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded, statutory limitations on attorneys’ fees, and other subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Costs, Fines, and Fees Are Bad Policy R E C O M M E N D a T I O N S F O R I L L I N O I S L E G I S L a T O R S
    COURT COSTS, FINES, AND FEES ARE BAD POLICY R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R I L L I N O I S L E G I S L A T O R S C H I C A G O A P P L E S E E D & C H I C A G O C O U N C I L O F L A W Y E R S | J U L Y 2 0 2 0 COURT COSTS, FINES, AND FEES ARE BAD POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................1 PART I: HISTORY + SCOPE OF MONETARY SANCTIONS......2 - 10 when + how did court costs, fines, fees, and criminal justice debt arise? ....2 what is the current scope of monetary sanctions in criminal courts? how do they relate to other legal structures? ..............................................3 what institutional imperatives drive monetary sanctions? .........................4 Figure 1: "Revenue from Monetary Sanctions in the U.S. and in Illinois" ................................4 challenging intuitive explanations .......................................................................5 Punishment ........................................................................................................................5 Budgetary Needs................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: "Revenue from Monetary Sanctions and Crime Rates in Illinois" .............................5 Figure 3: "U.S. Arrests".................................................................................................................6 underlying institutional motivations...................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Attorneys' Fees As Covered Costs, Damages, Or Loss
    INSURANCE LAW Wording and Interpretation Attorneys’ Fees as Covered Costs, Damages, or Loss By Thomas R. Newman To help preclude obligations to defend or indemnify insureds for suits seeking awards of attorneys’ fees, insurers and their counsel need to understand the effect of policy language and courts’ interpretation of it. ■ Thomas R. Newman is of counsel to Duane Morris LLP in New York City. He practices in the areas of insurance and reinsur- ance law, including coverage, claims handling, contract drafting and arbitration, and litigation. He has served as lead counsel in more than 60 reinsurance arbitrations and also has handled hundreds of appeals in both state and federal courts. He is a mem- ber of DRI, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel, and the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, and a life member of the American Law Institute. 8 ■ For The Defense ■ March 2014 Attorneys’ Fees as Covered Costs, Damages, or Loss ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’ or ‘per- In the United States, under the so-called “American rule,” sonal and advertising injury’ to which this insurance applies are alleged.” 300 P.3d the prevailing party in a litigation is ordinarily not entitled at 34. The majority in EMC, quoting from that to reimbursement for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and court’s earlier decision in Mutual of Enum- claw v. Harvey, 115 Idaho 1009, 1013, 772 expenses from the loser in the absence of a statutory or P.2d 216, 220 (1989) (“Harvey”), stated: “The contractual provision allowing such an policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation: a Legislative Analysis Donald J
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1983 Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation: A Legislative Analysis Donald J. Polden Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] E. Thomas Sullivan Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation 20 Harv. J. on Legis. 397 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATUTE CONTRIBUTION AND CLAIM REDUCTION IN ANTITRUST LITIGATION: A LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS DONALD J. POLDEN* E. THOMAS SULLIVAN** The Supreme Court's recent decision in Texas Industries v. Radcliff Materials affirmed the common law rule against contribution among an- titrust defendants, and left congressional action as the only avenue for those seeking to allow contribution.In this Article, ProfessorsPolden and Sullivan examine the relevant legislation proposed in the last two Con- gresses in light of the policies underlying the antitrustlaws. They conclude that a contribution rule, if adopted by Congress, should apply only to offenses subject to a rule of reason analysis and that contribution shares should be determined by standards more flexible than those of market share analysis. The authors believe that the trialjudge in antitrust cases should have discretion over whether or not to conduct a jury trial.Finally, they suggest that legislation in this area should not be applied retroactively.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Book
    OFFICIAL 2021 CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK (Revision of 1998) CONTAINING RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT RULES FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE APPENDIX OF FORMS NOTICE REGARDING OFFICIAL JUDICIAL BRANCH FORMS APPENDIX OF SECTION 1-9B CHANGES Published by The Commission on Official Legal Publications Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut 2021 by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut EXPLANATORY NOTES The Superior Court Rules as organized herein were first published in the Connecticut Law Journal dated July 29, 1997. This 2021 edition of the Practice Book contains amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Superior Court Rules and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amendments were published in the Connecticut Law Journals dated February 11, 2020, July 14, 2020, and August 4, 2020. The system used to number each section is based on the chapter in which the section is located. Each section has a two part number. The first part of the number designates the chap- ter, and the second part designates the number of the section within that chapter. (Chapter 1 begins with 1-1, chapter 2 with 2-1, etc.) The internal breakdown of individual rules follows the style of the General Statutes. Subsections are designated by lower case letters in paren- theses, (a), (b), subdivisions are designated by numbers in parentheses, (1), (2), and subpara- graphs are designated by upper case letters in parentheses, (A), (B). Origin of the rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Alaska Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Fairness and Access
    Report of the Alaska Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Fairness and Access October 31, 1997 Alaska Court System 303 K Street Anchorage, AK 99501 907-264-0548 Prepared with the assistance of State SJI Justice Institute PURPOSE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In 1995, a group of judges and administrators from the Alaska Court System attended a national conference on Eliminating Race and Ethnic Bias in the Courts, sponsored by the State Justice Institute. Following this conference, the Alaska Supreme Court appointed the Advisory Committee on Fairness and Access to identify concerns about racial and ethnic bias in the state court system and make recommendations. The Fairness and Access Committee enlisted many community members and court employees to serve on its six subcommittees, to make findings and recommendations to the full committee on a broad range of topics. This report is intended to assist the Alaska Supreme Court in addressing those concerns. The Fairness and Access Committee thanks the many people who have worked to make the project succeed. The committee received a major grant from the State Justice Institute to hire a project director, conduct research, hold meetings by teleconference, and seek out public participation. The State Justice Institute provided further travel support for the subcommittee members to receive training and work together on their findings and recommendations. The administration of the Alaska Court System provided administrative support and staff time. The Area Court Administrators provided funding for travel and research. The Alaska Judicial Council provided staff time and research support. The individual committee and subcommittee members gave generously of their time.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on the Law of Attorney's Fees Under § 1988
    663 A Primer on the Law of Attorney’s Fees Under § 1988 Mark R. Brown* MODERN CIVIL LITIGATION IN AMERICA generally proceeds under the assumption that plaintiffs and defendants must choose and pay their own lawyers. This “American Rule,” as it is called, remains a corner- stone in private rights resolution. Whether the action involves a con- tract, a tort, or real estate, parties ordinarily retain and pay their own lawyers.1 In contrast, a modified “English” fee-shifting rule is commonly em- ployed today in litigation involving public rights—that is, rights, privi- leges, and immunities that protect individuals from government. Con- trary to the American practice, English courts have historically required that losing parties compensate winners’ lawyers. In order to encourage “private attorneys general” to police government, civil rights legislation today regularly (per the English model) requires that successful plain- tiffs’ lawyers be paid by governmental defendants.2 In an effort to max- imize the number of private attorneys general, the English rule is gen- erally ignored when governmental defendants prevail in these civil rights suits.3 Hence, civil rights litigation in America employs a mod- ified English fee-shifting rule. Plaintiffs making constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against *Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Professor of Law, Capital University. This paper was presented at the Civil Rights Section’s AALS program entitled “Reasonable Attorney’s Fees: A Crucial Mechanism for the Enforcement of Civil Rights,” on Jan- uary 8, 2005, in San Francisco, California. I thank all the panelists at the Civil Rights Section’s program for their help and comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Management and the Hawaii Courts: the Evolving Role of the Managerial Judge in Civil Litigation
    Case Management and the Hawaii Courts: The Evolving Role of the Managerial Judge in Civil Litigation by Eric K. Yamamoto** I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 396 II. "JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED:" THE PROBLEM OF CASE CONGESTION AND MOUNTING PRETRIAL COSTS................. 399 A. Increased Case Filings ............................. 399 B. Spiraling Litigation Costs .......................... 402 III. CASE MANAGEMENT BY THE MANAGERIAL JUDGE .............. 403 A. Functions of the Managerial Judge .................. 403 B. Rationale for the Managerial Judge: Enhancing the Quality of Justice-Reducing Delay and Pretrial Cost Without Sacrificing Impartiality or Diminishing Fair Access ...... 406 1. Efficiency ....................................... 407 a. Federal Courts ............................... 408 b. State Courts ................................. 409 2. Assuring Impartiality and Preserving Fair Access ........ 412 a. The Adversarial Process and Judicial Impartiality .... 412 (1) The Managerial Judge as an Evolutionary Rather Than Revolutionary Change in the Adversarial Process ................................ 4 13 (2) Concerns About Impartiality ............... 416 b. Fair A ccess .................................. 4 18 IV. AN ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGERIAL RULES: NEW RULES 11, 16 & 26 ........... ..... ....... .. ....... ...... .. .. .. ... 4 20 * Associate Professor of Law, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa. B.A., University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1975; J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 1978. The author would like to thank specially John Gotanda for his invaluable research, insight and hard work. His efforts have been essential to the preparation of this article. The copyright is retained by the author. University of Hawaii Law Review / Vol. 9:395 A. Judicial Control Over the Pretrial Process-New Rule 16 420 B. New Rule I I-"Stop, Look, and Inquire" .............. 428 1. Reasonable Inquiry Requirement ................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Impact of Court Costs and Fees on Juveniles and Families
    Assessing the Impact of Court Costs and Fees on Juveniles and Families Vanessa Patino Lydia, MPA, Blythe Zayets, MA, Nekea Sanders, MS, Haley Pritchard, MA & Rachel Han December 19, 2017 Prepared for the Jessie Ball duPont Fund Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 A Review of the Literature on Juvenile Court Costs ................................................................ 1 Intent of Court Fees ............................................................................................................ 2 Questions Raised about the Constitutionality of Court Fees ............................................. 2 Impact of Court Costs on Youth and Their Families ........................................................... 3 Benefits of Implementing Alternative Practices: California as a Model ............................. 6 A Closer Look at Florida and the 4th Judicial Circuit ................................................................. 7 A Review of Florida Policy and Statutes ............................................................................... 8 A Review of Local Practices and Trends in the 4th Judicial Circuit ........................................... 9 Scope of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 10 Issues Identified for Reform .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney's Fees; Statutes and Law in Pennsylvania
    Attorney’s Fees; Statutes and Law In Pennsylvania Updated March 1, 2017 A Guide to Fee-Shifting Rules and Statutes by Clifford A. Rieders, Esquire Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann 161 W. Third St. Williamsport, PA 17701 P: 570-323-8711 F: 570-567-1025 [email protected] www.riederstravis.com Copyright 2016 Clifford A. Rieders Table of Contents Page Introduction …………………………………………………………………….... 2 Chapter 1: General Concepts Concerning Attorney’s Fees ………………….. 3 1. The “American Rule” ………………………………………………………………............. 3 2. Waiver of Attorney’s Fee; Litigating Under English Rule; Contractual Fee-Shifting Agreements………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 3. Two Broad Categories: (1) Attorney’s Fees Available to One Party Versus Both Parties & (2) “May” Versus “Shall” Provisions ……………………………………………………. 6 4. Prevailing Party ……………………………………………………………………………... 7 5. Equity Power of the Court & Standard of Review ………………………………………….. 8 6. Determining a Reasonable Fee ……………………………………………………………… 9 7. Who May Award Attorney’s Fees ………………………………………………………….. 10 8. Petitioning the Court ………………………………………………………………………... 10 9. Appealability of Attorney’s Fees……………………………………………………………. 11 10. Hearing on Attorney’s Fees; Due Process Requirements ……………………………………11 11. Appellate Review of an Award of Attorney’s Fees ………………………………………… 12 12. Multiple Claims…………………………………………………………………………... …13 13. Sovereign Immunity ………………………………………………………………………... 13 14. Miscellaneous Information …………………………………………………………………. 13 Chapter 2: Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
    [Show full text]
  • Some Costs of Continuances
    .. If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. " Some Costs of Continuances it l\lulti-Jurisdictional Study . prepared by Joan E. Jacoby Charles R. Link Edv,'ard C. Ratledge 103304 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of thl; authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ~d material has been granted by ." .Plll?}~~_~J:).9I!!9:j.~N:(g___ . __ . ,,(J • S.· .. ,2E:!Pc::t.±J:F.§nt_Q£~JUs.tic e to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of th~t owner. Jefferson Institute for Justice Studies \Vashington, D.C. July 1986 \ This report was supported by !\'lJ Grant Number 84-IJ-CX-0002 a"warded to the Jefferson Insti­ tute of Justice Studies, Washington DC by the National Institute of Justice. The data presented and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the official position, policies or points of "iew of the l\ational Institute Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice . • • -ii- • CONTENTS Page List of Tables...... ..... ..................... ............ ........ ............................ ..... ................ ................ IV List of Figures................... ................... ........ ....................................................................
    [Show full text]