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

• Cunningham v. City OF Overland
  804 F.2d 1066· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a merchant's license, when zoning permitted the business and the denial was arbitrary and capricious, violated substantive due process, and that the damages awarded were not excessive.
• Grosvenor v. Brienen
  801 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that pre-offer attorney's fees must be added to the judgment award when comparing it to an offer of judgment under Rule 68, and that an oral settlement offer is not a valid offer of judgment under Rule 68.
• Quiros v. Colon
  800 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision not to assess attorney's fees against the plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, finding the court acted within its statutory discretion.
• Seaway Drive-In, Inc. v. Twp. OF Clay
  791 F.2d 447· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Ringrose
  788 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Chumash plaintiffs failed to state a claim for unlawful trespass and conversion because their aboriginal title was extinguished by their failure to present claims under the Act of 1851, and the Mexican land grants did not extinguish aboriginal title.
• Lazar v. Pierce
  757 F.2d 435· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 8×
  A defendant in a civil rights case is entitled to know the full implications of a settlement, including attorney's fees, and parties can consciously waive such fees.
• Pitts v. Freeman
  755 F.2d 897· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 8×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that a district court's judgment is considered final for the purpose of local rules on attorney's fees, even if an appeal is pending.
• Duncan v. Poythress
  750 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 8×
  A pro se attorney litigant is entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the time spent representing themselves, and the fee application need not explicitly state all theories of recovery.
• NEW York City Unemployed & Welf. Council v. Stanley Brezenoff/Commissioner of the N.Y. City Human Res. Admin. & Comm'r of N.Y. City Dep't of Soc. Servs.
  742 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a total ban on solicitation within welfare offices was a permissible, least restrictive means to prevent fraud and misrepresentation, and affirmed the denial of attorney's fees due to de minimis success.
• Annunziato v. THE GAN, Inc.
  744 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the award of attorney's fees, finding the appellees to be prevailing parties who succeeded on a significant issue through settlement, and that The Gan became a state actor by actively defending the suit.
• Irizarry v. Hon. Carlos Quiros
  722 F.2d 869· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendants' denial of reemployment to plaintiffs due to their prior legal actions constituted a conspiracy actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), and that punitive damages and attorneys' fees were properly awarded.
• Polk v. NEW York State Dep't OF Corr. Servs.
  722 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1983-11-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had discretion to consider either Northern or Southern District rates when calculating attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, even though the case was transferred due to improper venue.
• Adolph Pigeaud v. McLAREN
  699 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 8×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A Rule 68 Offer of Judgment that specifies only 'costs and expenses' does not include attorney's fees unless the offer explicitly states so or a governing statute mandates it.
• Richmond R. Allen and Jesse W. Nicholson v. Basil C. Burke, Jr.
  690 F.2d 376· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 8×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  Judicial officers are not immune from attorney fee awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when prospective relief is properly granted against them. The awarded fees were reasonable.
• White v. NEW Hampshire Dep't OF Emp. Sec.
  679 F.2d 283· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees, finding the request timely and the plaintiff a prevailing party, and also affirmed the refusal to vacate the consent decree.
• Wright v. Gentry Crowell
  674 F.2d 521· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims were moot and that a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Balark v. Curtin
  655 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-31 ·cited 8×
  The court should reverse the denial of the motion to quash the garnishment summons based on the parties' stipulated agreement and Illinois public policy.
• United States v. Rogers
  649 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The Fifth Circuit held that a federal tax lien cannot be foreclosed against a Texas homestead when one spouse has no tax liability and Texas law treats the homestead interest as a property right, not merely an exemption.
• Murphy v. Kolovitz
  635 F.2d 662· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 8×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A district court's denial of attorney's fees to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 must be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining any special circumstances rendering an award unjust. Without such an explanation, the denial is procedurally unfair
• Crain v. City OF Mountain Home
  611 F.2d 726· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Ordinance 535 was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, but Ordinance 534, while facially constitutional, was also an unconstitutional bill of attainder due to its punitive intent and effect. The attorney fee award was deemed inadequate.
• Hall v. Lieutenant John Ashley
  607 F.2d 789· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury verdict and instructions were so confusing and inconsistent that the issue of prevailing party status for attorney fees could not be decided, requiring a new trial.
• Olitsky v. O'Malley
  597 F.2d 303· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney's fees to the defendants because the plaintiffs' civil rights action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
• Lee v. Am. Eagle Airlines, Inc.
  93 F. Supp. 2d 1322· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that attorney misconduct can justify a reduction or denial of attorney's fees, even for a prevailing party, and reduced the requested fees significantly.
• The Fair Hous. Council OF Greater Wash. v. Landow
  999 F.2d 92· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-14 ·cited 7×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  A district court may, in its discretion, deny a request for attorneys' fees in its entirety when the request is so outrageously excessive it shocks the conscience of the court, especially when the applicant fails to adequately document fees for distinct successful and unsuccessfu
• Perotti v. Seiter
  935 F.2d 761· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while attorney fees are due, the multiplier award must be reconsidered due to improper justifications and a conceded error in the base calculation.
• Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  910 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while a district court has discretion to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, it must consider the non-prevailing plaintiff's financial circumstances when determining the amount of the award.
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp.
  896 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in calculating the attorneys' fee award by failing to adequately explain its reduction of hours and by setting an unreasonable hourly rate.
• Rosalyn Asbury v. Brougham
  866 F.2d 1276· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for compensatory and punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and that the denial of the motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• High v. Braniff Airways, Inc.
  592 F.2d 1330· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a revised Appendix H to a consent decree, which imposed job and seniority changes on the Teamsters union without their consent, was improperly imposed and could not stand as a litigated judgment.
• Colin M. Gonzales v. Fairfax-Brewster Sch., Inc.
  569 F.2d 1294· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 7×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court held that the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 did not apply retroactively to cases where the Supreme Court judgment was final before the Act's enactment, but reversed the district court's alteration of a prior cost award.
• Wallace v. Mulholland
  957 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge acted within his discretion regarding evidence exclusion, judge's conduct, and attorney fee awards, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• Vargas v. Hudson Cnty. Bd. OF Elections
  949 F.2d 665· 3d Cir.· 1991-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an insurer owed coverage for civil rights violations and that attorney fees awarded to third parties were an element of damages, making the appeal timely only as to the final fee quantification. However, the court reversed an enhancement of attorney fees due t
• Nydam v. Lennerton
  948 F.2d 808· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the denial of the defendants' motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the damages awarded were not excessive and the attorney fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Garth Maag v. Wessler
  944 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that awarding attorneys' fees to prevailing defendants in § 1983 actions requires a finding that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.
• Brooks v. Cook
  938 F.2d 1048· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that informing the jury about the potential for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and allowing defense counsel to comment on it was an abuse of discretion, as it could prejudice the jury and undermine the statute's purpose. The court also found the award of at
• Erdman v. Cochise Cnty.
  926 F.2d 877· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 6×
  A Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, once accepted, cannot be rescinded based on the offeror's unilateral mistake regarding the inclusion of attorney fees as 'costs' under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, especially when the offer's language is unambiguous.
• Norris v. Hartmarx Specialty Stores, Inc.
  913 F.2d 253· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The court affirmed the award of actual damages but remanded the attorneys' fees award to the district court for an explanation of its reasoning. The court also awarded attorneys' fees for the appeal.
• Scott v. Flowers
  910 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge holds that the plaintiff's section 1983 suit is barred under the rationale of Thomas v. Kadish because the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct functioned as a court and review was available, and the reprimand was a non-actionable expression of opinion.
• David Bruce Gilbert, M.D. v. Ben-Asher
  900 F.2d 1407· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior state court adjudications and stipulations.
• KAY v. Bremer Ehrler
  900 F.2d 967· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court should allow the plaintiff to recover attorney's fees equivalent to the opportunity cost of handling other litigation.
• Thorstenn v. Barnard
  883 F.2d 217· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for services rendered in the district court, court of appeals, and Supreme Court, but fees against the Virgin Islands Bar Association are denied.
• Geier v. Richardson
  871 F.2d 1310· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 permit a district court to award attorney's fees against the United States when it intervenes in a civil rights case, challenges a consent decree it previously supported, and ultimately loses that challenge.
• Altonette Jackson v. Raoul Galan
  868 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Sheriff, sued in his official capacity, was liable for attorney's fees under § 1988, but the Clerk of Court was not, due to lack of causal nexus and plaintiff not prevailing against him.
• Esparza v. Valdez
  862 F.2d 788· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that claims for prospective relief were moot due to intervening developments and that claims for past benefits were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties and thus not entitled to attorney's fees.
• Jensen v. The Dep't OF Transp.
  858 F.2d 721· Fed. Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 6×·via Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)
  The Board lacks the statutory authority to order an attorney to refund a portion of a fee to a client or to pay a portion of the fee directly to the client.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rivera-Rios
  846 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that attorneys who performed pretrial legal services while known to be potential witnesses did not violate the advocate-witness rule under the applicable Model Rules of Professional Conduct and are eligible for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Steele v. VAN Buren Pub. Sch. Dist.
  845 F.2d 1492· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the school district violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by permitting teacher-led prayer at mandatory school functions, and the case was not moot despite the teacher ceasing the practice and one student graduating.
• I. Bertrand Chernin & Myron Chernin v. Welchans
  844 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court should not rule on the constitutionality of the entire Ohio landlord-tenant statute because most issues are moot, except for the one percent fee provision.
• Abshire v. Walls
  830 F.2d 1277· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the reasonableness of the strip search was a jury question, and that the district court erred in limiting attorneys' fees by misinterpreting the relationship between Abshire's successful and unsuccessful claims.
• Walje v. The City OF Winchester
  827 F.2d 10· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that general damages are appropriate in § 1983 actions for First Amendment violations when harm is likely but difficult to prove, and attorney fees were reasonable.