42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Attorney'S Fees)

525 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 135 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Davis v. City OF Charleston
  827 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the officers but remanded the attorney's fees awards for both parties for reconsideration.
• Bass v. Sw. Bell Tel., Inc.
  817 F.2d 44· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of attorneys' fees, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Fid. Guar. Mortg. Corp. v. Reben
  809 F.2d 931· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the award of attorney's fees and costs to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, finding the plaintiff's civil rights action to be frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.
• Jones v. Honorable David L. Wilkinson
  800 F.2d 989· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal law preempts state regulation of cable television programming content, and that a party's ability to pay attorney's fees is not a special circumstance to deny an award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Durett v. Cohen
  790 F.2d 360· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the reduction of the fee award on the merits but remanded for reconsideration of the fee petition award, the multiplier, and the award against Bucks County defendants.
• Helms v. Lowell D. Hewitt
  780 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that a plaintiff can be a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 even without formal monetary or injunctive relief, if their lawsuit vindicates constitutional rights or acts as a catalyst for positive change.
• Bailey v. Heckler
  777 F.2d 1167· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's fee awards must be vacated and remanded because the court failed to provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its calculations and enable meaningful appellate review.
• LeSAVAGE v. White
  755 F.2d 814· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that deputy Carpenter was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims regarding Bernard's arrest and Audrey's Baker Act commitment, and that the malicious prosecution claim against the Whites should not have been tried. The common law battery claim against
• Odum v. A.B. Clark
  748 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the district court properly considered the degree of success in calculating attorney's fees and correctly assessed fees against the county for official capacity violations, while not awarding fees against the individual officers.
• Gould, Inc. v. Wis. Dep't OF Indus.
  750 F.2d 608· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 6×
  Wisconsin statutes blacklisting labor law violators are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act because they interfere with the federal scheme by penalizing recidivism. However, attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are not warranted based solely on the preemption claim.
• Rev. P.L. Perkins v. Cross
  728 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court must reconsider the attorney's fees award in light of Hensley v. Eckerhart, distinguishing between successful and unsuccessful claims and tailoring the award to the achieved success.
• Rev. Bill McLEAN v. The Ark. Bd. OF Educ.
  723 F.2d 45· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  Specific fund-raising activities by an organization representing a prevailing civil rights plaintiff are irrelevant to the availability or amount of attorneys' fees awarded under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976.
• DOE v. Koger
  710 F.2d 1209· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that attorneys' fees are not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) provides its own comprehensive enforcement mechanism, making 42 U.S.C. § 1983 an unnecessary and unavailable conduit for such fees.
• Campbell v. Cook
  706 F.2d 1084· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prevailing defendant in a frivolous § 1983 action can recover attorney fees under § 1988, even if the fees are sought by the indemnifying municipality.
• P. Mastrippolito & Sons, Inc. v. Joseph
  692 F.2d 1384· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant, but did err in denying costs to the prevailing defendant.
• Rev. E. Z. Charles v. Coleman
  689 F.2d 774· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiffs as prevailing parties and in limiting the award solely to OIC.
• Hirschkop v. Honorable Harold F. Snead
  646 F.2d 149· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-14 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the Virginia Supreme Court, in promulgating the disciplinary rule, acted in a legislative capacity and is therefore absolutely immune from liability for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Torres v. City of Orlando
  264 F. Supp. 2d 1046· M.D. Fla.· 2003-04-07 ·cited 5×
  The court granted the defendant's motion for costs and attorneys' fees, finding the plaintiff's Title VII action to be frivolous and groundless, and also awarded fees against plaintiff's counsel for multiplying proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously.
• Am. Council OF THE Blind OF Colo., Inc. v. Romer
  992 F.2d 249· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the catalyst rule, which allows for attorney's fees when a lawsuit causes the defendant to provide relief, is still applicable in cases without a judgment on the merits, even after Farrar v. Hobby.
• Selwyn A. Robinson under the Will of Alymer F. Robinson v. Ariyoshi
  933 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because their claims were ultimately dismissed on ripeness grounds, and they failed to demonstrate a material alteration of the legal relationship with the defendants.
• Crabtree v. Collins
  900 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 5×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A party is not considered a "prevailing party" under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, if they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claims.
• Gonzalez v. Pingree
  821 F.2d 1526· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 5×
  A § 1983 action is available to redress violations of the Food Stamp Act, and a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under § 1988.
• Blackwell v. Dep't OF Offender Rehab.
  807 F.2d 914· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that an attorney's failure to disclose settlement terms foreclosing attorney's fees constituted a lack of candor warranting Rule 11 sanctions, even if subsequent legal arguments had arguable merit.
• Soffer v. City OF Costa Mesa
  798 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while the City's post-tow procedures violated due process, the appellant failed to prove damages and did not properly plead claims against individual defendants. The award of attorney's fees to the individual defendants was reversed.
• Alfonso v. United States
  613 F.2d 1309· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 5×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A jeopardy assessment is not a "civil action or proceeding" under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, precluding attorney's fees for the taxpayer.
• Gilleo v. City OF Ladue
  986 F.2d 1180· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Ladue's sign ordinance is unconstitutional because it is content-based and not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, but modified the attorneys' fee award by vacating the enhancement for contingency.
• Pembroke v. Wood Cnty.
  981 F.2d 225· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the claim for declaratory relief was moot due to remedied conditions, the plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to attorney's fees because their lawsuit caused the jail to improve its unconstitutional conditions.
• Est. OF Daniel A. Borst v. River Grove Police Officer Richard O'Brien
  979 F.2d 511· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees, but costs must be reduced by the amount of non-recoverable travel expenses.
• Gluth v. Kangas
  951 F.2d 1504· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Department of Corrections policies denied inmates meaningful access to the courts, and the district court's grant of summary judgment and injunctions were proper.
• Fassett v. Haeckel
  936 F.2d 118· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a jury's finding of a Fourth Amendment violation was supported by sufficient evidence, and that nominal damages and attorney's fees were properly awarded.
• Howard v. City OF Burlingame
  937 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The Federal Communications Act, FCC regulations, and PRB-1 do not create individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a preemption victory under the Supremacy Clause does not confer such rights for attorney fee purposes.
• United States v. State OF Wash.
  935 F.2d 1059· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as the subproceeding at issue was an action to enforce, not define, established treaty rights.
• In re the Est. OF Michael Patrick Smith & Carolyn Finnell v. O'Halloran
  930 F.2d 1496· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 4×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the Secretary's position substantially justified for the period before March 24, 1987, and thus plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees under the EAJA for that period.
• Beaton v. Thompson
  913 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Washington Administrative Code 388-24-050(3) is invalid because it violates federal AFDC regulations by improperly imputing income from non-legally responsible relatives.
• Metrocorps, Inc. v. The E. Mass. Junior Drum & Bugle Corps Ass'n
  912 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make required findings when denying attorney's fees and costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, and by failing to explain its decisions on Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 claims.
• Brown v. Borough OF Chambersburg
  903 F.2d 274· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 4×
  42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not authorize awards of attorney's fees against a plaintiff's attorney, but can be awarded against a plaintiff whose claim is found frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
• Plyler v. Parker Evatt
  902 F.2d 273· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees, finding no clear error in the hourly rates set and upholding the award for post-decree litigation that was inextricably intermingled with the original claims.
• Clement Dale Kelly v. City OF Leesville
  897 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 4×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court affirmed the judgment for breach of contract but remanded for a hearing on sanctions for the frivolous federal claim.
• HAY v. The City OF Irving
  893 F.2d 796· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the jury's excessive force findings were supported by evidence, the conspiracy claim was improperly submitted, and damages for constitutional deprivation were impermissible.
• Cooper v. State OF Utah
  894 F.2d 1169· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The District Court erred in reducing attorney fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on the simplicity of issues and settlement attempts.
• Ackerley Commc'ns OF Mass., Inc. v. City OF Somerville
  901 F.2d 170· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while Ackerley was entitled to attorney's fees as a prevailing party, the requested amount was unreasonable due to excessive hours, switching to more expensive counsel, and lack of record support for hourly rates.
• Higgs v. Bland
  888 F.2d 443· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but vacated the denial of attorney fees under the consent decree.
• Bijan N. Tabrizi and Fahimeh A. Tabrizi v. Vill. OF Glen Ellyn
  883 F.2d 587· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of sanctions and attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Marks v. City OF Chesapeake
  883 F.2d 308· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the City Council's denial of a conditional use permit based on public religious objections, rather than legitimate zoning concerns, was arbitrary and capricious, violating due process.
• Hoffmeister v. Coler
  544 So. 2d 1067· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-07 ·cited 4×
  A party is considered 'prevailing' for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if they succeed on any significant issue that achieves some of the benefit sought, even if not the primary relief.
• Felipa Monreal Rodriguez v. Handy
  873 F.2d 814· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 4×
  A judgment against the United States under the FTCA bars any action against the government employee whose conduct gave rise to the claim, and attorney's fees and costs against the employees must also be vacated.
• Jackson v. Crews
  873 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, the damages and attorney fees awards were supported by the evidence, and the defendant's other claims of error lacked merit. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
• The Franklin Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Page
  540 So. 2d 891· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while damages were properly awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the attorney's fees were calculated using an improper state standard instead of the applicable federal standard.
• RAY v. THE Fla. Cabinet
  845 F.2d 311· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 4×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The denial of interim attorney fees under the EAJA and Section 1988 is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when the underlying merits and damages claims remain unresolved in the district court.
• Willard v. City OF LOS Angeles
  803 F.2d 526· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 4×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  An attorney lacks standing to seek attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after their client has waived them in a settlement, and settlements may be conditioned on such waivers.