City of Burlington v. Ernest Dague, SR., et al. (505 U.S. 557)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 24, 1992 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 505 U.S. 557 · 112 S. Ct. 2638
- Decided
- June 24, 1992
- Term
- October Term 1991
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Attorneys
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether a court, in determining an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under § 7002(e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 90 Stat. 2826, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 6972(e), or § 505(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act (CWA)), 86 Stat. 889, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1365(d), may enhance the fee award above the “lodestar” amount in order to reflect the fact that the party’s attorneys were retained on a contingent-fee basis and thus assumed the risk of receiving no payment at all for their services. Although different fee-shifting statutes are involved, the question is essentially identical to the one we addressed, but did not resolve, in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U. S. 711 (1987) (Delaware Valley II). I Respondent Ernest Dague, Sr. (whom we will refer to in place of all the respondents), owns land in Vermont adjacent to a landfill that was owned and operated by petitioner city of Burlington. Represented by attorneys retained on a contingent-fee basis, he sued Burlington over its operation of the landfill. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that Burlington had violated provisions of the SWDA and the CWA, and ordered Burlington to close the landfill by January 1,1990. It also determined that Dague was a “substantially…
Excerpt of a 16,854-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.