Civil Rights Attorney'S Fees Awards Act Of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988)

148 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Smith v. Thomas
  687 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 10×
  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×
  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.
• Jasper Neely v. The City OF Grenada
  624 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-20 ·cited 10×
  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.
• Tufaro v. Willie
  756 F. Supp. 556· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-31 ·cited 9×
  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.
• Pitts v. Freeman
  755 F.2d 897· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 8×
  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.
• Adolph Pigeaud v. McLAREN
  699 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 8×
  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×
  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.
• Murphy v. Kolovitz
  635 F.2d 662· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 8×
  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
• The Fair Hous. Council OF Greater Wash. v. Landow
  999 F.2d 92· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-14 ·cited 7×
  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
• Colin M. Gonzales v. Fairfax-Brewster Sch., Inc.
  569 F.2d 1294· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 7×
  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.
• Norris v. Hartmarx Specialty Stores, Inc.
  913 F.2d 253· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Jensen v. The Dep't OF Transp.
  858 F.2d 721· Fed. Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Helms v. Lowell D. Hewitt
  780 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Odum v. A.B. Clark
  748 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Rev. Bill McLEAN v. The Ark. Bd. OF Educ.
  723 F.2d 45· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 6×
  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.
• P. Mastrippolito & Sons, Inc. v. Joseph
  692 F.2d 1384· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 6×
  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×
  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×
  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.
• Crabtree v. Collins
  900 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 5×
  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.
• Alfonso v. United States
  613 F.2d 1309· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 5×
  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.
• In re the Est. OF Michael Patrick Smith & Carolyn Finnell v. O'Halloran
  930 F.2d 1496· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Clement Dale Kelly v. City OF Leesville
  897 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the judgment for breach of contract but remanded for a hearing on sanctions for the frivolous federal claim.
• RAY v. THE Fla. Cabinet
  845 F.2d 311· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 4×
  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×
  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.
• Marryshow v. Flynn
  986 F.2d 689· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the "judgment finally obtained" must include pre-offer costs and attorney's fees when comparing it to the offer of judgment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an amended attorn
• Timothy Scott McDONALD Barbara J. McDonald v. McCARTHY
  966 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-27 ·cited 2×
  An appellate court's order directing each party to bear its own costs does not preclude a prevailing party from recovering attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for successfully defending a judgment on appeal.
• Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Mem'l Ctr.
  963 F.2d 1352· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a contingency enhancement to attorney fees is appropriate only in exceptional cases where there was a real risk of not prevailing at the outset of litigation and substantial difficulty in finding counsel without such an enhancement.
• Am. Atheists, Inc. v. City of Starke
  509 F. Supp. 2d 1221· M.D. Fla.· 2007-06-21
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees in part and denied their motion for sanctions, awarding a reduced amount of fees and costs based on the lodestar method and statutory limitations.
• Wolk v. Seminole Cnty.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 786· M.D. Fla.· 2007-02-16
  The court held that disputed facts regarding probable cause precluded summary judgment for Deputy Klein on the false arrest and imprisonment claims, but granted summary judgment for other defendants on those claims. Summary judgment was granted for all defendants on the unconstit
• United States v. State OF Wash.
  873 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-01
  The court held that the tribes' success in establishing rights to hatchery-raised fish was based on treaty interpretation, not civil rights claims, thus precluding attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Phillips v. Allegheny Cnty.
  869 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-09
  The district court erred in awarding attorney's fees after the parties had expressly waived them in a settlement agreement approved by the court, as such waivers are permissible under Evans v. Jeff D. and the waiver here was not obtained through bad faith or duress.
• Rose v. Heintz
  806 F.2d 389· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-02
  The court held that the state agency's actions in terminating Medicaid benefits based on an improper interpretation of federal law were taken under color of state law, making the state liable for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Hall v. Hall
  738 F.2d 718· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-03
  The court held that a trial court's denial of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on the plaintiff's obnoxious behavior constituted an abuse of discretion, as such behavior does not rise to the level of special circumstances required to deny fees.
• Jones v. Davis
  595 F.2d 4· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-10
  The court held that Oregon's policy denying foster care eligibility to children placed with related foster parents conflicts with the Social Security Act and that the award of attorney fees was permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Crucible Inc. v. The United States
  591 F.2d 643· Ct. Cl.· 1979-01-24
  The court held that accruals to the SUB Plan that did not exceed maximum financing limitations were deductible in the year of accrual under the 'all events' test, but the deductibility of amounts exceeding limitations and potentially spilling over to S&V Plans required further fa