1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 703 F.2d
  5. 703 F.2d 71 (1983)
 

SHADIS v. BEAL

No. 82-1260.

703 F.2d 71 (1983)

Jack SHADIS, Belle Feinberg, Marie Burton, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. Frank BEAL, Individually and as Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Wilbur E. Hobbs, Individually and as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, Southeastern Region, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Leo A. Sullivan, Individually and as Welfare Policy Specialist, Office of Basic Family Maintenance, Department of Public Welfare, Southeastern Region, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Don Jose Stovall, Individually and as Executive Director of the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, Helen Hyde, Individually and as Director of Operations, Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, June Reed, Individually and as District Supervisor, Medical Assistance District Office, Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, Cynthia Anderson, Individually and as Assistant District Supervisor, Medical Assistance District Office, Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, Mildred Davis, Individually and as Assistant District Supervisor, Medical Assistance District Office, Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, and Aurelius Robertson, Individually and as Casework Supervisor, Medical Assistance District Office, Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, William Harden, "John Doe," and John Grady, Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided March 31, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alan M. Lerner (argued), Susanna E. Lachs, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Leroy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen., Maria Parisi Vickers (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Before WEIS and BECKER, Circuit Judges, and VAN DUSEN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires us to apply the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1976 & Supp.IV 1980) ("the Act"), to an application by a law firm to recover fees for representing another attorney in the prosecution of her application for § 1988 fees. The principal question presented is whether that law firm can recover fees for the time...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases