City of Burlington v. Dague
United States Supreme Court
505 U.S. 557 (1992)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Ernest Dague, Sr. (plaintiff) sued the city of Burlington (defendant) for violations of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Clean Water Act while operating a landfill near Dague’s land. Dague’s attorneys represented him on a contingency-fee basis. Dague was successful in court, and the statutes permitted Dague to request his attorney’s fees as damages. Dague therefore requested a lodestar amount representing his attorneys’ hourly rates multiplied by the number of hours the attorneys spent on the case. Dague also requested a contingency enhancement of an additional 25 percent of the lodestar to account for the risk his attorneys took by accepting his case. The district court granted the request for the contingency enhancement, reasoning that without the enhancement the case’s risk level would have prevented most attorneys from taking Dague’s case. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a contingency enhancement is permitted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
