From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaDuke v. Nelson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 7, 1986
796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986)

Summary

noting that a person's residence has the highest "measure of protection" under the Fourth Amendment

Summary of this case from WARREN v. SWAT, T.P.D.

Opinion

Nos. 83-3608, 84-4148.

August 7, 1986.

Michael J. Fox, Skellenger, Ginsberg Bender, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Marshall Tamal Golding, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.

Before FARRIS, ALARCON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1985), filed June 10, 1985, is modified as follows:

The last sentence of the first full paragraph of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1321, is changed to: "We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand."

The fifth full paragraph on 762 F.2d at 1333, which begins "Finally," is deleted. The following paragraphs are substituted:

"Finally, the INS charges that the hourly fee award ($100 and $125) to class counsel unreasonably exceeded the normal fee of $75 per hour under the EAJA. The EAJA authorizes exceeding the $75 `cap' on attorney fees based on either a cost of living increase or a `special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings.' 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). The court did not abuse its discretion in finding a special factor existed for breaching the $75 cap based on expert testimony. Accord Action on Smoking and Health v. CAB, 724 F.2d 211, 219 (D.C.Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we affirm the award of attorney's fees and the hourly rates.

"We vacate the district court's use of the 20% multiplier, however, and remand the issue of the propriety of a multiplier to the district court for such further proceedings, findings, and orders as it may deem necessary in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Library of Congress v. Shaw, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2957, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986); City of Riverside v. Rivera, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986)."

Section IV. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1333, is changed to: "We affirm the district court's issuance of an amended injunction and the award of fees and costs and the hourly rates, but vacate and remand the use of the 20% multiplier."


Summaries of

LaDuke v. Nelson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 7, 1986
796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986)

noting that a person's residence has the highest "measure of protection" under the Fourth Amendment

Summary of this case from WARREN v. SWAT, T.P.D.
Case details for

LaDuke v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES LaDUKE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ALAN C. NELSON, ETC., ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 7, 1986

Citations

796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

The Presbyterian Church

However, as we are unable to assess the likelihood that the churches will be subject to INS surveillance in…

Stein v. Depke

First, all reasonable officials would know that the Steins were vulnerable to DCS's power and would not…