context: . The Supreme Court has not addressed whether the risk of not being the prevailing party in a SS 1983 case and, therefore, not being entitled to an award of attorneys' fees may ever justify an upward adjustment.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 106 S.Ct. 3100, 3100
citation_a.parenthetical: ordering case set for reargument on whether attorneys' fees chargeable to a losing defendant under the Clean Water Act and comparable statutes may be enhanced based on risk of loss
citation_a.sentence: Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3100 (ordering case set for reargument on whether attorneys’ fees chargeable to a losing defendant under the Clean Water Act and comparable statutes may be enhanced based on risk of loss); Blum, 465 U.S. at 901 n. 17, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 n. 17. But see Blum, at 903, 104 S.Ct. at 1551, (Brennan, J., concurring) ("It is clear ... that Congress authorized district courts to award upward adjustments to compensate for the contingent nature of success, and thus for the risk of nonpayment in a particular case”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 762 F.2d 1318, 1333
citation_b.parenthetical: district court may take contingent nature of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. SS 2412
citation_b.sentence: See also LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1333 (9th Cir.1985) (district court may take contingent nature of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412), amended, 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir.1986).