In the case of Hensley et al. v. Eckerhart et al., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a partially prevailing plaintiff could recover attorney's fees for legal services related to unsuccessful claims under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. The plaintiffs had initially brought forth several constitutional challenges against conditions at a Missouri correctional center and were successful on some but not all claims. They sought to recover full attorney’s fees, which was contested by defendants who argued that they should only pay for time spent on successful claims. The Supreme Court held that where a lawsuit consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should be eligible for reimbursement of all attorney’s fees even if he did not prevail on every contention. However, it also noted that courts must consider the degree of success achieved when awarding such costs; thus implying partial victories may result in reduced fee awards.

In the dissenting opinion for Hensley et al. v. Eckerhart et al., Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, argued that the majority's decision to award attorney fees based on "partially prevailing" plaintiffs in civil rights cases was too broad and inconsistent with legislative intent. He contended that Congress intended such awards only when a plaintiff could show they had achieved substantial success on significant issues in litigation which directly benefited them. The dissent also expressed concern about potential abuse of this ruling as it might encourage unnecessary litigation or excessive billing hours by attorneys seeking larger fee awards from defendants who are often public entities funded by taxpayers' money. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that district courts should have discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable fee; instead advocating for clearer guidelines to ensure consistency across different jurisdictions.