Legal Opinion
Farrar v. Hobby
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 14, 1992No. 91-990PublishedCited by 2,906 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
We decide today whether a civil rights plaintiff who receives a nominal damages award is a “prevailing party” eligible to receive attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed an award of attorney’s fees on the ground that a plaintiff receiving only nominal damages is not a prevailing party. Although we hold that such a plaintiff is a prevailing party, we affirm the denial of fees in this case.
I
Joseph Davis Farrar and Dale Lawson Farrar owned and operated Artesia Hall, a school in Liberty County, Texas, for delinquent, disabled, and disturbed…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Blanchard v. BergeronSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,906 opinions
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Shalala v. SchaeferSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Fox v. ViceSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Millea v. Metro-North RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
2,901 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.