Legal Opinion
Hueble v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 27, 2016No. Appellate Case 2012-212006; 27631PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hearn
The issue here is whether 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 (2006), and is therefore entitled to attorneys’ fees. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold he is and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
In 2003, William Alvin Hueble purchased 220 acres of farming and hunting property in Greenwood County. At the time of closing, the seller informed Hueble that Respondent Eric R. Vaughn, a corporal for the…
2Cases cited34 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
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- 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
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- L.A. v. Swanson Ph.D. as Superintendent, Guam DOESuperior Court of Guam · 2026
- Reggie Wells v. Vetech, LLCCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2022
- Vanessa Colley v. John S. Colley. III (Concurring in part)Tennessee Supreme Court · 2025