Cited by

ss of the award by considering “all relevant circumstances, including the time and labor required; the nature and difficulty of the responsibility assumed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; and the fee arrangement existing between counsel and the client.” see also State by Comm’r of Transp.

in determining reasonableness of an attorney-fee award include “[1] the time and labor required; [2] the nature and difficulty of the responsibility assumed; [3] the amount involved and the results obtained; [4] the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; [5] the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; and [6] the fee arrangement existing between counsel and the client.” d 424, 426 (Minn. 1971).

(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (d 424, 426 (Minn. 1971); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (developing what would later be known as the “lodestar method.”).

strict courts consider “all relevant circumstances, including the time and labor required; the nature and difficulty of the responsibility assumed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; and the fee arrangement existing between counsel and the client.”

” Milner v. Farmers Ins.

When a party requests an award for fees, the district court considers “all relevant circumstances.” d 424, 426 (Minn. 1971).

at 659-60; see also Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , (describing six factors as “relevant circumstances” in lodestar analysis); City of Minnetonka v. Carlson , 765 n.1 (Minn. 1980) (relying on six factors to determine reasonable value of legal services); -26 (Minn. 1971) (listing six factors to consider when determining reasonable value of legal services); see also Minn. R. Gen.

In determining reasonable attorney fees, the district court may consider “all relevant circumstances.”

(quoting State v. Paulson , 290 Minn. 371 , , 426 (1971) ).

See City of Minnetonka v.Carlson , , 765, 765 n.1 (Minn. 1980) (interpreting Minn. Stat § 117.195 (1976), which provided that "[w]hen the proceeding [for condemnation] is so dismissed or the same is discontinued by the petitioner, the owner may recover from the petitioner reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys' fees"); State by Head v. Paulson , 290 Minn. 371 , , 425-26 (1971) (listing six factors to consider when determining "what constitutes the reasonable value of legal services" w

13 Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

In determining “the reasonable value of the legal services,” the district court should consider “all relevant circumstances.” State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

In determining “the reasonable value of the legal services,” the district court should consider “all relevant circumstances.” State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373, d 424, 426 (1971).

ants claim that when statutes like section 572B.25 give district courts discretion in awarding fees, “something other than the lodestar method of review is required to determine whether an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted.” Appellants appear to argue that, instead of the lodestar method, district courts should be required to consider the circumstances set out in State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371

In an unpublished opinion, this court concluded that the district court did not address the factors set out in State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373, and remanded “for findings on the Paulson factors” and for the district court to “make adequate findings of fact to support whatever amount of fees [the district court] concludes is reasonable to award.” WL 4721531, at *11 (Minn. App. Nov.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the factors enunciated by the supreme court in State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, to adjust a lodestar-based attorney fee upwards, and because the district court did not clearly err in determining a reasonable award of attorney fees, we affirm.

(quoting State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373, ).

State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373 , see also Milner, d at 621 (quoting Paulson, 290 Minn. at 373 , d at 426 ).

In determining “the reasonable value of the legal services,” the district court should consider “all relevant circumstances.” State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

In determining the reasonableness of the hours and the reasonableness of the hourly rates, the court considers “all relevant circumstances.” State v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373

See State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373 , (stating that what constitutes reasonable value of attorney fees is determined by the evidence submitted and the facts in the record).

State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373 , (providing factors a court should consider when awarding attorney fees).

The test for determining the reasonableness of attorney fees is “[t]he time and labor required; the nature and difficulty of the responsibility assumed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the fees customarily charged for similar legal services; the experience, reputation, and ability of counsel; and the fee arrangement existing between counsel and the client.” State by Head v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 373