Case Citator › Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

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

Overruled in part
Court
D.C. Circuit
Citation
746 F.2d 4
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
85 of 86
Citing cases (total)
581
Treatment dates
1986–1990
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. was overruled in part. Of 86 flagged citations, 85 citing opinions were read; the text of one could not be retrieved, so it remains unread.
More on how this was screened

The en banc D.C. Circuit overruled Laffey's rule that the below-market historical billing rates of reduced-rate, for-profit public-interest lawyers controlled their fee awards. Three other courts declined to follow Laffey on contingency-risk enhancements or historical-rate caps. The four confirmed treatments are listed below.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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, except the ones whose text could not be retrieved.

581 later cases cite Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.; 86 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 85 of them have been read, and the text of 1 citing opinion could not be retrieved, so it remains unread. 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 Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 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

Overruled in Part

  • The en banc D.C. Circuit overruled Laffey's historical-rate cap for private, for-profit attorneys who charge reduced rates for non-economic reasons, requiring courts to use prevailing market rates instead.

    Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel · D.C. Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We therefore expressly overrule Laffey to the extent that it imposes the above discussed different method of determining reasonable attorney fees on attorneys situated as Yablonski and Galloway are here. Henceforth, the prevailing market rate method heretofore used in awarding fees to traditional for-profit firms and public interest legal services organizations shall apply as well to those attorneys who practice privately and for profit but at reduced rates reflecting non-economic goals.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to Follow

  • The Eastern District of Michigan rejected Laffey's disapproval of contingency-risk enhancements and held that a significant risk of nonpayment can justify an upward fee adjustment.

    McCullough v. Cady · E.D. Mich. · filed

    McKinnon v. City of Berwyn, 750 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir.1984) and Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3488, 87 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985), have disapproved of the practice. ... Allowing the upward adjustment of attorneys’ fees where the petitioner shows that there was a significant risk of nonpayment comports with direction taken by the majority of the courts who. have considered the issue, and also with the intent of Congress as reflected in the legislative history of § 1988.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Illinois Appellate Court rejected Laffey's historical-billing-rate approach and required Section 1988 fees to reflect prevailing community rates for comparably skilled attorneys.

    Beverly Bank v. Board of Review of Will County · Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · filed

    Contrary to Laffey, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Lightfoot v. Walker (7th Cir. 1987), 826 F.2d 516, has ruled that the prevailing attorney in a civil rights action was not limited to his historical billing rate for work done primarily in other areas of the law and in a different locality. ... We conclude that the trial court erred in relying upon previous billings of a small number of clients in determining the prevailing market rate for petitioners.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Northern District of California declined to apply Laffey's historical-rate rule and followed Ninth Circuit law permitting a reasonable community rate.

    United States v. City and County of San Francisco · N.D. Cal. · filed

    The Laffey court ruled that the historical rate of fee applicants is the proper figure for an award, so long as it is within the range of rates within the relevant legal community. However, the rule in this circuit is markedly different: This Circuit does not follow the legal standard set forth in Laffey. “While evidence of counsel’s customary hourly rate may be considered by the District Court, it is not a [sic] abuse of discretion in this type of case to use the reasonable community standard that was employed here.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 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