Case Citator › Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.

Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
526 F.2d 67
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
118 of 118
Citing cases (total)
1,055
Treatment dates
1992–2010
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc. is abrogated in part and limited after review of all 118 flagged citations, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. City of Burlington v. Dague displaced Kerr's use of a contingent fee or risk of nonpayment to enhance a federal fee-shifting award.
More on how this was screened

Perdue v. Kenny A. further confined Kerr's factors by holding that matters already reflected in reasonable hours and rates cannot independently support an enhancement and that the lodestar is strongly presumed sufficient. Later opinions repeatedly applied or reported those Supreme Court rules while continuing to use Kerr's unaffected factors and its requirement of an adequately explained fee decision.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,055 later cases cite Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.; 118 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Kerr's use of a contingent fee or risk of nonpayment to enhance a lodestar award under federal fee-shifting statutes, holding that contingency enhancement is not permitted.

    City of Burlington v. Dague · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We note at the outset that an enhancement for contingency would likely duplicate in substantial part factors already subsumed in the lodestar. ... Adopting the position set forth in Justice White's opinion in Delaware Valley II, 483 U. S., at 715-727, we hold that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee-shifting statutes at issue.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Supreme Court confined Kerr's separate-factor analysis by holding that factors already reflected in reasonable hours or rates cannot support an additional enhancement and that enhancements are reserved for rare, specifically proven circumstances.

    Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We have stated in previous cases that such an increase is permitted in extraordinary circumstances, and we reaffirm that rule. But as we have also said in prior cases, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is sufficient; factors subsumed in the lodestar calculation cannot be used as a ground for increasing an award above the lodestar; and a party seeking fees has the burden of identifying a factor that the lodestar does not adequately take into account and proving with specificity that an enhanced fee is justified.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace