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

• Kelley v. Metro. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  773 F.2d 677· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an award of costs on appeal is a prerequisite to an award of appellate attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and that the district court abused its discretion in awarding $100 per hour for all hours since 1972.
• Ladnier v. Murray
  769 F.2d 195· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 30×
  The jury's special verdict answers were irreconcilably contradictory, requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial.
• Jensen v. Stangel
  762 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing defendants because the plaintiff's civil rights action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Jannie Hall and Guardian Ad Litem for Charles Hall v. Borough OF Roselle
  747 F.2d 838· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 30×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that an upward adjustment to attorney's fees for the contingent nature of the fee or perceived case difficulty was not justified when liability was clear and no specific hurdles were demonstrated.
• Ill. Welf. Rights Org. v. Miller
  723 F.2d 564· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court must explicitly consider the reasonableness of the attorney's fee award in light of the extent of the plaintiffs' overall success, as required by Hensley v. Eckerhart.
• Crawford v. Garnier
  719 F.2d 1317· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the plaintiff's article was a substantial motivating factor in his termination was supported by substantial evidence, and that the admission of certain statements by an employment analyst was proper.
• Inmates OF the Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Pierce
  716 F.2d 177· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court, in awarding attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, must consider the extent to which the prevailing party succeeded on the merits, as mandated by Hensley v. Eckerhart.
• Fulps v. The City OF Springfield
  715 F.2d 1088· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 30×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A petition for attorney's fees filed eight months after judgment is not necessarily untimely if governed by the equitable doctrine of laches, and the term 'costs' in a Rule 68 offer of judgment includes attorney's fees in civil rights actions.
• Fitzharris v. Wolff
  702 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an inmate who obtained a temporary restraining order preventing his transfer to a dangerous prison, and whose case later became moot due to parole, was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• United States v. Ford
  650 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 30×
  The appeal from the denial of the motion to intervene is moot because the underlying summons enforcement proceeding was dismissed, and the appellants are not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as they were not prevailing parties.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  618 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-06 ·cited 30×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
• Bowers v. Kraft Foods Corp.
  606 F.2d 816· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 30×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claims but reversed the award of attorney's fees to the employer.
• Davis v. Vill. Park II Realty Co.
  578 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the alleged chilling effect on First Amendment rights, coupled with potential nominal damages and attorney fees, is sufficient to prevent a civil rights claim from becoming moot, even if injunctive relief is no longer possible.
• Cooper v. Dyke
  814 F.2d 941· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff on claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and false arrest, and that the attorneys' fee award was properly calculated.
• Tomazzoli v. Sheedy
  804 F.2d 93· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees, finding the hourly rate and reduced hours to be reasonable given the evidence presented.
• Ruggiero v. Krzeminski
  928 F.2d 558· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the 'plain view' doctrine does not validate warrantless searches, and the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in awarding nominal damages and attorney's fees.
• Hamilton v. Daley
  777 F.2d 1207· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 28×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that while the plaintiff's suit was frivolous and defendants were entitled to fees, the district court failed to adequately determine if all hours billed were reasonably expended in light of the frivolous nature of the claims. The court remanded for further finding
• Hamner v. Rios
  769 F.2d 1404· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 28×
  The existence of a contingent fee agreement does not, by itself, justify denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the district court abused its discretion by doing so.
• Rose v. State OF Neb.
  748 F.2d 1258· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that attorney's fees are not recoverable for state administrative proceedings under EAHCA when the fee claim is based on § 1983, and modified the award to exclude the State and its Board as entities due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• O'Neil v. City OF Lake Oswego
  642 F.2d 367· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 28×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A judge acting in excess of jurisdiction, but not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, is protected by judicial immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Attorney's fees awards require specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Paxman v. Campbell
  612 F.2d 848· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 28×
  The maternity leave policies requiring pregnant teachers to cease teaching at mandatory times violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. School board members sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualif
• Monk v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  599 F.2d 1378· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) do not authorize the assessment of attorneys' fees against attorneys for their clients' litigation conduct. Section 1927 only allows for excess costs caused by vexatious multiplication of proceedin
• Cabrales v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  864 F.2d 1454· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the denial of the JNOV motion, the denial of summary judgment, and the jury verdict, finding that the defendants waived sufficiency of evidence arguments by failing to move for a directed verdict. The court also affirmed the attorneys' fees award, finding no ab
• Sablan v. Dep't OF Fin. OF the Commonwealth OF the N. Mariana Islands
  856 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the plaintiff was a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because his lawsuit acted as a catalyst for the government to reform its unconstitutional policy of terminating utility services without notice and a hearing, even though the case was settled by stipu
• Spanish Action Comm. OF Chicago v. City OF Chicago
  811 F.2d 1129· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-10 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the district court's substantial reduction in attorney's fees but remanded for an award of specific paralegal fees and witness costs, finding the district court's calculation method for attorney's fees, while potentially procedurally flawed, was not an abuse of
• Goodson v. City OF Atlanta & J.D. Hudson
  763 F.2d 1381· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in directing verdicts on wrongful arrest and search claims, in its jury instructions regarding city policy, or in its award of attorney's fees.
• Johnston v. Jago
  691 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 27×
  A plaintiff can be considered a "prevailing party" for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if their lawsuit was causally related to the relief obtained and had a minimum basis in law, even if the relief was secured through a settlement in a separate proceeding.
• Floyd v. Laws
  929 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on qualified immunity was not an abuse of discretion, and that a jury's answer to a verdict question, given in violation of explicit instructions, is surplusage and must be disregarded.
• Bateson v. Geisse
  857 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 26×
  The City Council's arbitrary withholding of a building permit, after all requirements were met, violated the developer's substantive due process rights and constituted official policy, making the City and council members liable. The court also affirmed the dismissal of procedural
• Willner v. Budig
  848 F.2d 1032· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff's section 1983 claim, and summary judgment was properly granted on other claims, as was the award of attorney fees.
• Alliance TO END Repression v. City OF Chicago
  820 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 26×
  The Court held that the plaintiffs' pursuit of an advisory opinion on constitutional law, after settling their monetary claims, did not constitute a "prevailing" party status for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as there was no longer a justiciable controversy.
• Constantine John Gekas v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n OF the Supreme Court OF Ill. & Carl H. Rolewick
  793 F.2d 846· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Gekas was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but vacated the fee award due to inadequate explanation and remanded for recalculation.
• Mother Goose Nursery Schs., Inc. v. Sendak
  770 F.2d 668· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-14 ·cited 26×
  The Attorney General is absolutely immune from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity to review state contracts for legality and form. Therefore, the district court's award of damages and attorney fees against the Attorney General is rev
• Stewart v. Lubbock Cnty.
  767 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief should have been dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction due to insufficient Article III standing, as past wrongs do not establish a real and immediate threat of future injury.
• Rivera v. City OF Riverside
  763 F.2d 1580· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as it correctly reconsidered the case in light of Hensley v. Eckerhart and adequately explained the reasonableness of the award in relation to the plaintiffs' s
• Sanchez v. Schwartz
  688 F.2d 503· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the exclusion of fees for administrative delays, but reversed and remanded for further reductions in the expert witness fee and compensable hours.
• Anderson v. Morris
  658 F.2d 246· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees but erred by considering improper factors such as the case's notoriety in reducing the award.
• DeSisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of Howey-In-The-Hills
  718 F. Supp. 906· M.D. Fla.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that prevailing defendants are entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and § 1821, but not attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 unless the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, which it found to be the case here.
• Romberg v. Nichols
  953 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 24×
  The Rombergs are prevailing parties entitled to a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because they succeeded on a significant issue that altered the legal relationship with the defendants.
• Healy v. Town OF Pembroke Park
  831 F.2d 989· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the prior administrative proceeding did not preclude the plaintiffs from seeking compensatory damages in federal court, but affirmed absolute legislative immunity for the mayor and commissioners, and remanded for consideration of attorneys' fees.
• Turner v. McMAHON
  830 F.2d 1003· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 24×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A state is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(22) to recoup AFDC overpayments made to recipients under compulsion of an erroneous court order that was subsequently reversed.
• Mrs. Tobie Brantley v. M.F. Surles
  804 F.2d 321· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's awards for backpay and attorney's fees, finding no clear error or abuse of discretion in the calculations or application of legal standards.
• Brewster v. Barnes
  788 F.2d 985· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Brewster was an employee under the Equal Pay Act and that the defendants failed to prove the wage differential was due to a factor other than sex, entitling her to recover. The court reversed the § 1983 due process claim based on Supreme Court precedent.
• Duncan v. Poythress
  777 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a pro se litigant who is an attorney cannot recover attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 because the term 'attorney' implies representation of another party.
• Moore v. City OF DES Moines
  766 F.2d 343· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the City failed to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees and expenses, affirming the judgment.
• Bishop v. Comm. ON Prof'l Ethics & Conduct OF the Iowa State BAR Ass'n & its Chairman
  686 F.2d 1278· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's individual claims were moot due to the revocation of his law license, and the class action was improperly certified because the plaintiff was not an adequate representative. Therefore, the case must be dismissed.
• Tandy Richardson, Jr. v. The City OF Indianapolis
  658 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-25 ·cited 24×
• Young v. Kenley
  641 F.2d 192· 4th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 24×
  A plaintiff who achieves objectives through settlement, even without a judicial determination of rights, is a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc.
  648 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-24 ·cited 24×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that a prima facie case of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 was established, and that the discriminatory conduct of a rental agent is attributable to the owner. The court also affirmed compensatory damages but remanded for reconsideration of attorney's
• McMANAMA v. Lukhard
  616 F.2d 727· 4th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the award of attorneys' fees was proper, but erred in compelling an interrogatory regarding legal aid eligibility, though this error was harmless.