# Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 21, 2010 · 559 U.S. 542

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6679724

## Case

- **Full name:** SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA v. KENNY A., by his next friend LINDA WINN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 21, 2010
- **Citations:** 559 U.S. 542; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 240; 78 U.S.L.W. 4292; 109 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1; 93 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,877; 176 L. Ed. 2d 494; 130 S. Ct. 1662; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 3481
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Opinions, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Stevens, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 853 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6679724

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees is “committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge . . . but the judge’s discretion is not unlimited. It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determinatio…
- recognizing “there is a ‘strong presumption’ that the base lodestar figure is reasonable, but that presumption may be overcome in those rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reas…
- explaining that even in “a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge . . . [i]t is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects” of its determination because otherwise “adequate appellate review is not feasible”
- recognizing that the lodestar method "[d]eveloped after the practice of hourly billing had become widespread" and provides a rough approximation of such billing practices, but "if hourly billing becomes unusual, an alternative to the lodestar method may have to be found"
- finding that “the effect of the enhancement [to the lodestar] was to increase the top rate for the attorneys to more than $866 per hour, and the district court did not point to anything in the record that shows that this is an appropriate figure for the relevant market.”

## Opinion text

SEPARATE OPINIONS
Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
If one were to ask an attorney or a judge to name the significant cases of his or her career, it would be unsurprising to find the list includes a case then being argued or just decided. When immersed in a case, lawyers and judges find within it a fascination, an intricacy, an importance that transcends what the detached observer sees. So the pending or just completed case will often seem extraordinary to its participants. That is the dynamic of the adversary system, the system that so well serves the law.
It is proper for the Court today to reject the proposition that all enhancements are barred; still, it must be understood that extraordinary cases are presented only in the rarest circumstances.
With these comments, I join in full the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6679724. Public record. Not legal advice.