Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hueble v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 27, 2016No. Appellate Case 2012-212006; 27631Published

1Dissent

Justice KITTREDGE:

I respectfully dissent. Even if I were to accept the majority’s premise that “a plaintiff who obtained a Rule 68, SCRCP judgment of $5,100 in his favor is a prevailing party within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988,”9 I would nonetheless find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees. Section 1988(b) provides that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” The language of the statute speaks to a prevailing party’s eligibility for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Belton v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API