(concurring).
While I agree with my colleagues that more than a purely nominal fee is in order, I concur in the court’s opinion only on the understanding that we mean what we say in the final sentence — namely, that in setting a fee the district court does have discretion to take a hard look at the amount involved and the results-obtained. I do not doubt that in some eases where nominal damages are awarded, important matters of principle and precedent are at stake. In those, a fee reimbursing the attorneys for all the time spent may well be in order even though their clients have not recovered significant damages. In other cases, however, the litigation may have been unduly prolonged for the results obtained, wasting the resources and time of the court. In such a case, the district court is surely under no obligation to grant a fee based on the time actually spent. To which of these poles this case comes closest, I shall not venture to say; but I do feel it important that our opinion be read as conferring a reasonable flexibility upon the district court not merely to calculate time charges but to ascertain the value of what was accomplished.