Legal Opinion
Cleary v. City of Cincinnati, C-060410 (6-8-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 8, 2007No. C-060410Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
{¶ 1} In the third appeal of this matter, plaintiff-appellant Michael R. Cleary challenges the trial court's May 2, 2006, decision denying his motion for attorney fees under Section 1988, Title 42, U.S. Code, because he was not a prevailing party for purposes of awarding fees. Cleary had brought suit against defendant-appellee, the city of Cincinnati, under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S. Code, state statutes, and municipal ordinances, for damages resulting from the city's failure to provide proper notice of the demolition of Cleary's property located on Eastern Avenue in Cincinnati. In…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Maine v. ThiboutotSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Hanrahan v. HamptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.