Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Apr 26, 2010
|May 24, 2010||9-0||Thomas||OT 2009|
Holding: In certain retirement-benefits cases, a party requesting attorneyâ€™s fees from the court does not need to be the â€œprevailing partyâ€ in the case; a court may award fees to her as long as she has achieved â€œsome degree of successâ€ 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.
- â€œSome successâ€ enough to recover attorney fees in Hardt
- Attorneyâ€™s fees and retirees: is a â€œprevailing partyâ€ necessary under ERISA?
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Bridget Hardt
- Brief for Respondent Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Bridget Hardt
 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