Legal Opinion
Strauss v. Springer
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 28, 1993No. Civ. A. 91-439PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
LEOMPORRA, United States Magistrate Judge.
Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel Fees and Costs
The plaintiff, James Strauss, has filed a Motion for Counsel Fees and Costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Strauss sued Officers Richard Springer and Robert Clift and the City of Philadelphia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his civil rights due to the allegedly excessive force used by Springer and Clift in his arrest. At trial, the jury found against the officers with regard to the unreasonable use of force and awarded the plaintiff…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. AgyeiSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dowd v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Martin v. City of IndianapolisDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1998
- O'FARRELL v. Twin Bros. Meats, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
- Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, et al. v. Limbach Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026