From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Martin v. Hadix
United States Supreme Court
527 U.S. 343, 119 S. Ct. 1998, 114 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1999)
Facts
In 1980, male prisoners at the State Prison of Southern Michigan (prisoners) (plaintiffs) sued the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Central Complex (prison) (defendant) in federal district court, alleging that the conditions of confinement violated their civil rights. The court found for the prisoners and issued a remedial decree. The prisoners’ attorneys engaged in ongoing monitoring of the prison’s compliance with the decree. In 1985, the district court authorized an award of attorney’s fees for this work. On April 26, 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) became effective. Section 803(d)(3) of PLRA imposed a limit on awards of attorney’s fees incurred in the litigation of prisoner lawsuits. Prior to the enactment of § 803(d)(3), the prisoners’ attorney’s fees had been capped at $150 per hour. The formula contained in § 803(d)(3) limited attorney’s fees to $112.50 per hour. The prisoners’ attorneys submitted a fee request to the district court for monitoring performed between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 1996. The district court applied the new, reduced fee limit to monitoring performed after the PLRA effective date but not to monitoring performed before the effective date. The prison appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
