CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1991

Cleary v. Perales

This case concerns an appeal regarding the entitlement to attorney's fees for a mentally retarded man (petitioner) who successfully challenged the denial of Medicaid reimbursement for his transportation to a Federal sheltered workshop via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial IAS Court found the denial of Medicaid coverage irrational and not in accordance with social services law. On appeal, the court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of attorney's fees, concluding that the petitioner, as a prevailing party, was entitled to such fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court determined that the federal claim had sufficient substance and derived from a common nucleus of operative fact with the state claim. The matter was remanded for the calculation of attorney's fees, with the State respondent bearing the final responsibility.

Attorney's FeesMedicaid ReimbursementSocial Security DisabilityCPLR Article 78Federal Statutory RightsPrevailing PartyCommon Nucleus of Operative FactMental RetardationTransportation CostsSocial Services Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1990

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

This case concerns an amended order regarding the award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court re-affirmed its previous finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' and that no 'special circumstances' existed to deny the award, rejecting arguments regarding defendants' good faith, plaintiff's financial ability, or third-party contributions. The court then determined the reasonableness of the fees, finding the hours expended and the hourly rate to be appropriate. Despite the 'lodestar fee' calculation, the court, exercising its discretion, reduced the final award to prevent overpricing litigation, ultimately granting $318,977.78 in attorney's fees and $73,022.22 in disbursements and expenses.

Civil RightsAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesLodestar MethodDisbursementsExpert Witness FeesSection 1983Section 1988Exclusionary Zoning
References
32
Case No. SAC 355328
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

COLLEEN JORDAN vs. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

The Court of Appeal remanded this case for the Appeals Board to award attorney's fees to the applicant for responding to the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board awarded $4,470.00 in attorney's fees, calculated at $300 per hour for 14.9 hours of work. This award reflects the attorney's experience, the complexity of the case, and the successful opposition to the writ.

Labor Code § 5801attorney's feesWrit of ReviewCourt of Appealsupplemental awardhourly rateworkers' compensation specialistappellate complexityreasonable attorney's feesWCAB
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.

This case involves a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephen King sought fees due to defendant New Line Cinema's contempt of court for numerous violations of a Final Consent Decree concerning the misattribution of 'The Lawnmower Man' film. The District Court had previously found the defendant in contempt and awarded fees in 1994 and 1995. The Second Circuit affirmed some parts of the 1994 order but vacated others, along with the entire 1995 order, remanding the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration, specifically questioning the willfulness of the noncompliance. Upon review, this court concluded that while the defendant's conduct was negligent and contumacious, it did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for willfulness required for an award of attorney's fees for civil contempt under Second Circuit law. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was denied.

Civil ContemptAttorney's FeesWillfulness StandardSecond Circuit RemandConsent Decree ViolationsLanham ActFilm MisattributionThe Lawnmower ManInjunctive ReliefCompensatory Damages
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zizolfo v. Western Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on November 29, 1978, concerning an attorney's fee. The claimant's attorney, designated as the appellant, sought an additional $1,500 fee, contending that the initial $500 awarded by a referee was inadequate. The Board, however, determined that the appellant had been sufficiently compensated for services rendered. The appellate court, referencing section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that its determination on attorney's fees would only be disturbed if the fee was arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably low. Finding no such grounds, the court upheld the Board's original ruling.

Attorney's FeesAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFee DisputeJudicial DiscretionCompensation AwardsLegal ServicesAffirmationAdministrative Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colucci v. New York Times Co.

The defendant, The New York Times, moved for attorneys' fees after successfully defending against the plaintiff's reverse sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court found the plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding discrimination (failure to apply, lack of qualifications) and retaliation (no factual basis), to be frivolous and groundless. Consequently, the Court awarded the defendant $1,500 in attorneys' fees, a reduction from the requested $33,175, acknowledging the plaintiff's limited financial capacity (earning $19,000 in 1981 with dependents). Additionally, the defendant sought to impose fees on the plaintiff's attorney for vexatiously multiplying proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. However, the Court denied this motion, finding no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct from the attorney regarding the interrogatories, proof presentation, or communication with the court.

Reverse Sex DiscriminationRetaliationAttorneys' FeesTitle VIIFrivolous ClaimsVexatious LitigationSanctionsJudicial DiscretionPrevailing PartyFinancial Hardship
References
20
Case No. AHM 108812 AHM 108813 AHM 108814
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

OLIVIA ZAVALA vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

This case involves an award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful defense against the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the Board to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel's services. The applicant's attorney requested $5,171.89, but both parties ultimately stipulated to a total of $5,000.00 for attorney's fees and appellate costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealStipulationAppellate CostsMetropolitan Water DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ6861829
Regular
Jun 13, 2012

BART JAMES JOHNSON vs. BEYETTE'S TREE CARE

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees to Bart James Johnson's attorney, pursuant to Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis. Consequently, the case was remanded for attorney's fees. The applicant's attorney requested $3,500.00 for ten hours of work at $350 per hour related to the writ of review. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board deemed this fee reasonable and awarded it against the uninsured employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewRemandReasonable Attorney FeesStipulationPetition for FeeAnswer to PetitionLegal Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ10065068
Regular
May 02, 2018

JOHN LAMBERT vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney. Following the denial of the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for this specific purpose. The applicant's attorney submitted a petition requesting \$9,765.00 for 27.9 hours of work at \$350 per hour in opposing the writ. Without objection from the defendant and after considering the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Appeals Board awarded the full \$9,765.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Labor Code § 5801additional attorney's feessupplemental awardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appealappellate attorney's feestime loghourly ratecase-by-case basismerits of appellate work
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,526 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational