THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF HALLANDALE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES
BY THE COURT:
The appellees/cross-appellants move this court for clarification of the panel opinion, 734 F. 2d 666 (11th Cir.1984), in this case, as it affects Miami Herald’s cross-appeal respecting attorney fees. In order for Miami Herald to be entitled to attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, it must qualify as a “prevailing party” under the statute. In determining whether Miami Herald is a prevailing party, “the proper focus is whether the plaintiff has been successful on the central issue”; “a prevailing party need not have prevailed on all the issues; it is sufficient that plaintiffs prevail on the main issue.” Best v. Boswell, 696 F. 2d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir.1983); see also Iranian Students Association v. Edwards, 604 F. 2d 352, 353 (5th Cir.1979), Ramos v. Koebig, 638 F. 2d 838, 845 (5th Cir.1981).
The main or central issue in this case is whether the licensing system in Chapter 16 of the Hallandale City Code infringes upon the Miami Herald’s rights under the First Amendment. In the panel opinion, we observed that “with one exception, the contested provisions concern themselves exclusively with establishing a system whereby the owners of vending machines are to pay a set fee as a precondition to engaging in business within city limits, and to that extent merely impose a revenue-raising occupational license tax—a tax under state law.” In light of that observation, we held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of Miami Herald’s claims with respect to all but the single non-tax related provision. Given that the non-tax provision constituted a very small segment of the ordinance challenged, and that the focus of Miami Herald’s concern is upon those provisions requiring the newspaper to pay a license tax, we conclude that the Miami Herald is not a prevailing party within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and is therefore not entitled to attorney fees. The Miami Herald’s suggestion that it has “prevailed” because its claims were not rejected on the merits is ill taken. Prevailing for purposes of § 1988 is exhibited by the fact that the litigant “has acquired the primary relief sought.” Iranian Students Association v. Edwards, 604 F. 2d 352, 353 (5th Cir.1979). This the Herald has not done.
IT IS ORDERED that appellees’ motion for attorney fees is DENIED and the judgment of the district court awarding appellees attorney fees is REVERSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
City OF Hallandale v. The Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 637 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…at under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1341, the only forum for the constitutional questions of this case was in state court. Miami Herald v. City of Hallandale, 734 F. 2d 666 (11th Cir.1984). See also Miami Herald v. City of Hallandale, 742 F. 2d 590 (11th Cir.1984). . The relevant ordinances, with some modifications, are currently numbered Chapter 18, City’s Code of Ordinances. . Making the First Amendment applicable to the states. . There are also cases which have held that some taxes and r…
-
E.J. Wilson v. Attaway, 757 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1985)…arter issue was not an abuse of discretion. To be entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 one must be a “prevailing party” or a party who has been “successful on the central issue.” Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. City of Hallandale, 742 F. 2d 590, 591 (11th Cir.1984). As their complaints indicate, plaintiffs brought these suits principally to vindicate their civil rights with respect to the April 8 rally, their May 19 arrest, and their subsequent jail confinement. The constitutionality of th…
-
Shauna Supre v. James G. Ricketts, Ph.D., 792 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1986)…. Town of Erie, 767 F. 2d 1469 (10th Cir.1985); Hennigan v. Ouachita Parish School Bd., 749 F. 2d 1148 (5th Cir.1985); Institutionalized Juveniles v. Sec. of Pub. Wei, 758 F. 2d 897, 910-17 (3d Cir.1985); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. City of Hallandale, 742 F. 2d 590 (11th Cir. 1984). But see Posada v. Lamb County, Texas, 716 F. 2d 1066, 1072 n. 7 (5th Cir. 1983). Although most appellate courts conduct a de novo review when presented with the “prevailing party” issue, the standard of review is rarely stated.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Iranian Students Ass'n v. Edwards, 604 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1979)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. City OF Hallandale, 734 F.2d 666 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Ramos v. Koebig, 638 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Odis Best v. Boswell, 696 F.2d 1282 (11th Cir. 1983)