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

• Cabrales v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  935 F.2d 1050· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 10×
  A prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees for an unsuccessful stage of litigation if that stage was a necessary step toward the ultimate victory.
• Knowlton Merritt v. MacKey
  932 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prior panel's decision on qualified immunity was the law of the case, the damages awarded were not clearly erroneous, and Mackey was liable for attorney's fees under § 1988 due to joint action with a state official, but the multiplier for attorney's fees w
• Crowder v. Hous. Auth. OF THE City OF Atlanta
  908 F.2d 843· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that parties who obtained a permanent injunction, vindicating significant constitutional rights, are prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and are entitled to attorney's fees, even if other claims remain pending for a co-plaintiff.
• BEE v. Greaves
  910 F.2d 686· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, finding the law regarding involuntary medication of pretrial detainees was clearly established. It affirmed in part and reversed in part the attorney fee award, remanding for reevaluation of fees for successful prior appeals.
• Lani Moore v. Dist. OF Columbia
  907 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (HCPA) authorizes courts to award attorney fees to parents who prevail in administrative proceedings under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA).
• Koster v. Perales
  903 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that both State and County defendants could be held jointly and severally liable for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as the plaintiffs were prevailing parties who achieved some of the benefits sought through litiga
• Allen v. Higgins
  902 F.2d 682· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity, but the attorney's fee award was excessive given the plaintiff's limited success.
• V-1 OIL Co. v. State OF Wyo.
  902 F.2d 1482· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge holds that reliance on attorney's advice alone, without more, is insufficient to establish the extraordinary circumstances required for qualified immunity when a clearly established constitutional right has been violated.
• The Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Nevins
  881 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal law preempts California's timber yield tax on timber harvested from tribal lands, and that the tribe's claim for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 was not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Remo Benigni v. City OF Hemet
  868 F.2d 307· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the City of Hemet and its police officers did not preserve all their challenges to the jury instructions and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on the various constitutional claims, affirming the judgment.
• Nash v. Delbert Chandler
  848 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court properly awarded attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs, the State of Texas, having intervened solely to defend a statute's constitutionality, cannot be held jointly and severally liable for those fees.
• Hernandez v. Hill Country Tel. Coop., Inc.
  849 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII complaint was timely filed, that the defendant waived the 180-day EEOC charge limitation by not raising it below, and that claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 can be pursued concurrently.
• Coleman v. Turner
  838 F.2d 1004· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney fees, but remanded for consideration of costs. It also affirmed the denial of injunctive relief regarding prison disciplinary actions and access to courts.
• Hernandez v. George
  793 F.2d 264· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court reversed a final judgment for the defendants, finding that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' requested jury instruction regarding the truck driver's duty of care.
• Shelton v. City OF Coll. Station
  754 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 10×
  Summary judgment was improvidently granted because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the zoning board's denial of a variance was arbitrary and discriminatory, and whether individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
• Teresa Diane P. v. Alief Indep. Sch. Dist.
  744 F.2d 484· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Diane's claim, asserting a constitutional right infringement by conditioning education on parental counseling, is not an independent constitutional claim but rather an assertion that the state misread the EAHCA. Such claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §
• The People OF the State OF NEW York v. 11 Cornwell Co.
  718 F.2d 22· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A state that prevails as a plaintiff in a lawsuit brought pursuant to a federal civil rights statute is eligible for an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Riddell v. The Nat'l Democratic Party
  712 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing joint and several liability or in calculating the lodestar for attorneys' fees, but did err by omitting consideration of travel time and time spent preparing the fee application.
• Owens-El v. Warden William Robinson and James Jennings Appeal of Kenneth Owens-El
  694 F.2d 941· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A pro se litigant, even if successful in a civil rights action, cannot recover attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Price v. Norbert Pelka
  690 F.2d 98· 6th Cir.· 1982-10-11 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that a district judge has discretion to deny attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights case if the plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct, such as perjury.
• Smith v. Thomas
  687 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A party is not considered a "prevailing party" for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if the relief obtained was merely a temporary restraining order that preserved the status quo and did not address the merits of the claims, especially when the unde
• Strama v. Paul Q. Peterson, M.D.
  689 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that while attorneys' fees are recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the hourly rate for lead counsel should not be increased beyond his usual billing rate, and multipliers are not justified in this case.
• Ky. Ass'n FOR Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Conn
  674 F.2d 582· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-06 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the construction of the Outwood facility and the allocation of guardian ad litem fees, but retained jurisdiction over the issue of attorneys' fees pending a Supreme Court decision.
• Pilkington v. Bevilacqua
  632 F.2d 922· 1st Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court has discretion in awarding attorney's fees, a heightened standard of scrutiny is required when awarding fees to a former law clerk to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
• Jasper Neely v. The City OF Grenada
  624 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-20 ·cited 10×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the district court erred in calculating attorney's fees by using a maximum local rate instead of considering all Johnson factors, and that a $100 per hour rate was reasonable for lead counsel.
• Dotson v. Lemuel Chester
  937 F.2d 920· 4th Cir.· 1991-06-05 ·cited 9×
  The county is liable for the sheriff's actions regarding the county jail because the sheriff possesses final policymaking authority for the county in that capacity, and the county is also responsible for supplemental attorneys' fees incurred in collecting the original award.
• Tufaro v. Willie
  756 F. Supp. 556· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 9×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs, awarding $82,500 in fees and $35,875.85 in costs, totaling $118,375.88.
• von Clark v. Butler
  916 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the district court's attorney fee award, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination of the hourly rate or the number of hours compensated.
• Fla. Pawnbrokers & Secondhand Dealers Ass'n v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  711 F. Supp. 1084· S.D. Fla.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 9×
  A municipality is liable for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when it enforces an unconstitutional statute, even if it did not enact the statute, and its choice to defend the suit does not constitute a special circumstance to avoid liability.
• Hicks v. Feeney
  850 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that dismissal was an excessive sanction, and an order precluding the plaintiff from establishing actual and punitive damages would have been more appropriate.
• Jewell Nephew v. The City OF Aurora
  830 F.2d 1547· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 9×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to prevailing plaintiffs who received only nominal damages, when the court considered the vindication of constitutional rights as a significant result.
• Vaughner v. F.J. Pulito
  804 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that an insurer has no duty to defend a claim for intentional discrimination because the policy's 'occurrence' definition excludes intentional acts, and that a prevailing defendant is not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if the plaintiff's claims
• Dinorah Berberena v. Coler
  753 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court erred in granting the full attorney fee request without a more thorough analysis and evidentiary hearing.
• Gilmere v. City OF Atlanta
  737 F.2d 894· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the City of Atlanta could not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the actions of its police officers absent an official policy or custom, and that the officers' conduct, being random and unauthorized, was remedied by Georgia's post-deprivation tort law,
• Callaway v. City OF W. Palm Beach
  674 So. 2d 921· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-06-05 ·cited 8×
• LEE Cnty. v. Sylvan Zemel
  675 So. 2d 1378· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-04-10 ·cited 8×
  Lee County appealed a trial court judgment that invalidated land use plan amendments on constitutional grounds, finding them arbitrary and capricious as applied to the Zemels' property. The court reversed, holding that constitutional challenges to agency action must be pursued th
• Aspen-Tarpon Springs Ltd. P'ship v. Stuart
  635 So. 2d 61· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-01-18 ·cited 8×
  Mobile home park owners challenged the constitutionality of two provisions of Florida's Mobile Home Act. The trial court upheld section 723.033 (rent control) as constitutional but struck down section 723.061(2) (relocation/buyout requirements) as an unconstitutional taking of pr
• Gates v. Deukmejian
  977 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to articulate a clear reason for the ten percent fee reduction and by not independently reviewing the fee application. The court also held that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1
• Annabelle Lipsett v. Gumersindo Blanco
  975 F.2d 934· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the lodestar calculation was largely correct, the enhancement for risk of nonpayment and exceptional performance was improper, and certain vague time entries should be discounted, requiring a reduction in the total fee award.
• Jermosen v. Smith
  945 F.2d 547· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner's right to Wolff v. McDonnell procedural protections for a seven-day keeplock was clearly established at the time of the hearing.
• Leffler v. Meer
  936 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and denying Rule 11 sanctions, but vacated and remanded the award of attorney's fees to the Commissioners.
• Pearson v. Fair
  935 F.2d 401· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the consent decrees and constitutional clauses did not require the application of specific clinical standards to patient sequestration, and affirmed the district court's decisions on the sequestration dispute and MPU controversy, but vacated the attorneys' fee
• Gilmere v. City OF Atlanta
  931 F.2d 811· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide adequate reasoning for its attorney's fee and cost awards, necessitating a remand for further explanation.
• Matlock v. Barnes
  932 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the legal investigator position was not policymaking or confidential was supported by the evidence, and the emotional distress award was not excessive. The court also vacated judgments against individual officials as moot.
• Dorina Mateyko v. Felix
  913 F.2d 744· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the appellant failed to present an adequate record for review of certain claims, and that a plaintiff who loses on federal claims and only prevails on a pendent state claim is not a prevailing party for attorney's fees u
• Friedman v. State OF Ariz.
  912 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Arizona Department of Corrections' Internal Management Policy No. 304.7, prohibiting facial hair, is constitutional as it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, and that Friedman is not entitled to attorney fees for his paralegal work.
• Serena Dunn v. THE Florida BAR
  889 F.2d 1010· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 8×
  Appellants prevailed for fee purposes as their lawsuit was a catalyst for rule changes, but they are not entitled to fees because they did not vindicate a constitutional right.
• Benitez v. Genaro Collazo-Collazo
  888 F.2d 930· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an attorney appealing an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 lacks standing, as the entitlement to such fees vests exclusively in the prevailing party, not the attorney.
• Goichman v. City OF Aspen
  859 F.2d 1466· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the availability of a hearing to adjudicate the underlying parking violation satisfies due process, and thus, no additional hearing was required for the towing and impoundment of the vehicle. The court also held that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party en
• Heath v. Chief A.J. Brown
  807 F.2d 1229· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred by not determining whether the plaintiffs prevailed on their federal claims, which is a prerequisite for awarding attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.