Opinion ID: 511641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Ill Admin. Code Sec. 1610.30

Text: 6 Because we hold that these hours are compensable as related within the meaning of Hensley, we need not address whether Jackson's suit was a catalyst for the rule change and whether he may therefore be considered a prevailing party on his 1984 due process claim. See Hewitt v. Helms, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2672, 2677, 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987); Savidge v. Fincannon, 836 F.2d 898, 904-06 (5th Cir.1988); Lovell v. City of Kankakee, 783 F.2d 95, 96-97 (7th Cir.1986) 7 Most of the hours spent on this case were part of the irreducible fixed cost of the litigation, Ustrak, 851 F.2d at 989, including research on procedural matters, case management, client consultation, discovery, and obtaining a protective order