Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
09-448	4th Cir.	Apr 26, 2010	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

â€œSome successâ€ enough to recover attorney fees in Hardt (Anna Christensen, May 25, 2010)
Attorneyâ€™s fees and retirees: is a â€œprevailing partyâ€ necessary under ERISA? (Anna Christensen, April 27, 2010)

Briefs and Documents

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

[edit] Certiorari-Stage Documents

Opinion below (4th Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitionerâ€™s reply

Breaking News

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

[edit] Amicus Briefs

[edit] Certiorari-Stage Documents

Jan. 6 defendant asks Supreme Court to throw out obstruction charge

Rideshare companies ask justices to reexamine California worker-protection law

Purposes and consequences: A conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer

Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute