Case Citator › Coulter v. State of Tennessee

Coulter v. State of Tennessee

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

Overruled in part
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
805 F.2d 146
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
2009–2016
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Coulter v. State of Tennessee was overruled in part on its limits for fees spent litigating an attorney fee award. The Sixth Circuit discarded Coulter's 3% and 5% limits in Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted and expressly left Coulter's other holdings intact.
More on how this was screened

An earlier district court criticized those limits while applying them. All 36 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

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.

36 later cases cite Coulter v. State of Tennessee; 36 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 Coulter v. State of Tennessee?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Sixth Circuit abrogated Coulter's 3% and 5% limits on hours spent preparing and litigating a fee award, leaving its other holdings intact.

    Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted · Sixth Circuit · filed

    In light of Jean, we abrogate the Coulter rule that limits the hours allowed for preparing and litigating the attorney fee case to 3% of the hours in the main case when the issue is submitted on the papers without a trial and to 5% of the hours in the main case after a trial. Coulter is otherwise unaffected.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The district court said Coulter's fee litigation cap discouraged efficient work and good faith fee negotiations, though it remained bound by the rule.

    Disabled Patriots of America, Inc. v. Reserve Hotel, Ltd. · N.D. Ohio · filed

    Although the Court understands the concerns regarding protracted litigation over fee awards expressed in Coulter v. Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146, 151 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied 482 U.S. 914, 107 S.Ct. 3186, 96 L.Ed.2d 674 (1987), it also recognizes that, to some extent, this rule discourages efficiency. The more one reduces the hours spent litigating a matter, and thus, saves their opponent money in a fee shifting case, the less time they are afforded to justify their efforts to do so. It also creates a disincentive for defendants to negotiate in good faith on fee questions because they know the additional costs associated with litigating the question are effectively capped. Despite these reservations, the Court acknowledges that the three percent rule is the law in this Circuit.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Coulter v. State of Tennessee 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