Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09-448 | 4th Cir. |
Apr 26, 2010 Tr. |
May 24, 2010 | 9-0 | Thomas | OT 2009 |
Holding: In certain retirement-benefits cases, a party requesting attorney’s fees from the court does not need to be the “prevailing party†in the case; a court may award fees to her as long as she has achieved “some degree of success†in the case.
Judgment: Reversed and Remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas on May 24, 2010. Justice Stevens concurred in part and in the judgment.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- “Some success†enough to recover attorney fees in Hardt
- Attorney’s fees and retirees: is a “prevailing party†necessary under ERISA?
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Bridget Hardt
- Brief for Respondent Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Bridget Hardt
[edit] Amicus Briefs
- Brief for United States of America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for AARP and the National Employment Lawyers Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for United Policyholders in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for DRI – The Voice of The Defense Bar in Support of Respondent
Submit Event
