JAMES SKODA AND MICHAEL CALLAHAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CARL FONTANI, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

7th Cir. | 1981-04-20
No. 80-2465
Before SWYGERT, SPRECHER and BAUER, Circuit Judges.
646 F.2d 1193 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1981) Negative Treatment
Cited by 22 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

Plaintiffs who win a jury verdict, even for nominal damages, are prevailing parties entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs obtained a one-dollar jury verdict in their civil rights action. The district court denied their request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The district court denied plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We reverse and remand.

Plaintiffs won a jury verdict of only one dollar in their civil rights action against defendant. Although this may be considered a small victory, plaintiffs did win a verdict in their favor. They are thus the prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, contrary to the district court’s conclusion.

The district court here did not articulate any “special circumstances” which would render any award of fees unjust. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). Nor did the court consider the appropriate amount of the award, since it ruled that plaintiffs did not prevail.

In Murphy v. Kolovitz, 635 F. 2d 662 (7th Cir. 1981), and Muscare v. Quinn, 614 F. 2d 577 (7th Cir. 1980), we set forth rules to guide the court’s discretion in deciding what fee award, if any, is appropriate. See also Coop v. City of South Bend, 635 F. 2d 652 (7th Cir. 1980). On remand, the district court should consider whether any special circumstances exist, and if not, should decide the appropriate amount of the fee award in light of these decisions.

The order of the district court is REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (11 total)

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw