District of Columbia v. Green

6 Citing cases

  1. Passtou v. Spring Valley Center

    501 A.2d 8 (D.C. 1985)   Cited 12 times

    The common fund or benefit exception to the American Rule is fully recognized in the District of Columbia. See District of Columbia v. Green, 381 A.2d 578, 580 (D.C. 1977); see also Launay v. Launay, Inc., supra, 497 A.2d at 449. The common fund or benefit doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1882 in Trustees v. Greenhough, 15 Otto 527, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1882).

  2. Peart v. District of Columbia Housing Auth

    972 A.2d 810 (D.C. 2009)   Cited 37 times
    Explaining that in an unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff's "restitution interest is to be measured by reference to the value of her services to [the defendant], not by reference to the actual costs [the plaintiff] incurred in providing them."

    That Ms. Peart acted in her own interest, and not to further DCHA's, does not preclude her from recovering in unjust enrichment where DCHA took proactive steps to benefit from her efforts. See District of Columbia v. Green, 381 A.2d 578, 581 (D.C. 1977) (concluding that common fund award appropriate against rebates due tax-payers who benefitted from challenge to tax assessment even though plaintiffs "stated repeatedly their purely selfish, monetary purpose and conceded" that the suit was not brought to vindicate rights of others) (internal citations omitted); Wallace v. Fiske, 80 F.2d 897, 909 (8th Cir. 1935) (attorney permitted recovery to avoid unjust enrichment of bond holders where he acted solely in his client's interests, and thereby benefitted non-parties, even though they had opposed the action and had hired their own attorneys). The law is reluctant to "force a person to pay for a benefit which he did not bargain to receive or pay for," and a party is not unjustly enriched for receiving "the unavoidable consequence of action taken by the plaintiff in pursuit of his own interests."

  3. Ginberg v. Tauber

    678 A.2d 543 (D.C. 1996)   Cited 13 times

    Accepting that assertion as fact, Shadoan opined that Ginberg would have spent approximately 12,000 hours, which at $280 an hour would yield a $3,360,000 fee. See, e.g., Copeland v. Marshall, 205 U.S.App. D.C. 390, 415 n. 57, 641 F.2d 880, 905 n. 57 (1980); Passtou, Inc. v. Spring Valley Ctr., 501 A.2d 8, 10 (D.C. 1985); District of Columbia v. Green, 381 A.2d 578, 580 (D.C. 1977). In Shadoan's opinion this amount was a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney with Ginberg's experience and skill.

  4. Oklahoma Tax Com'n v. Ricks

    1994 OK 115 (Okla. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding equity jurisprudence cannot extend the common fund doctrine to a tax refund case

    Flynn, supra note 16, 306 N.E.2d at 731; Von Holt, supra note 12, 355 P.2d at 43; Milster, supra note 12, 47 S.E. at 141-142.Southeast Legal Defense Group v. Adams, 657 F.2d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1981); District of Columbia v. Green, 381 A.2d 578, 582 (D.C.App. 1977); City of East Peoria v. Tazewell County, 17 Ill. App.3d 943, 308 N.E.2d 824, 826 (1974); Rosemont Bldg Sup., Inc. v. Illinois Hwy. Trust Auth., 51 Ill.2d 126, 281 N.E.2d 338, 340 (1972); Hoffman v. Lehnhausen, 48 Ill.2d 323, 269 N.E.2d 465, 469 (1971).Townsend, supra note 12 at 123.

  5. In re Antioch University

    482 A.2d 133 (D.C. 1984)   Cited 20 times

    Such a holding, if permitted to stand, would create a wholly new exception to the American Rule. Appellees argue in the alternative that even if the trial court was without broad equitable power to award counsel fees, the challenged award fits within the "common benefit" exception to the American Rule which this court recognized in District of Columbia v. Green, 381 A.2d 578 (D.C. 1977). The asserted analogy of the instant case to Green borders on the fanciful.

  6. WASHINGTON PUB. INT. ORG. v. DIST. OF COL

    436 A.2d 1299 (D.C. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    The court ruled that appellants were the prevailing parties but had failed to bring themselves within the limited exceptions to the so-called American Rule, which bars recovery of such costs by the prevailing party in a lawsuit.District of Columbia v. Green, D.C.App., 381 A.2d 578, 580 (1977). The fee amounted to some $23,000.