Legal Opinion · Dissent
McGrath v. Toys "R" US, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 23, 2004Published
1Dissent
*437Read, J. (dissenting).
I dissent with respect to certified question 4 only, which I would answer in the negative.
In Cabrera v Jakabovitz (24 F3d 372 [2d Cir 1994])—the Second Circuit’s seminal case applying the “significant public purpose” exception of Farrar v Hobby (506 US 103 [1992])—the court approved attorney’s fees based on its conclusion that the plaintiffs had “prevailed on a significant legal issue—namely, that landlords can be held liable for employing real estate brokers who are engaged in racial steering” (24 F3d at 393). In Cabrera, the plaintiffs, by creating a new rule making…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- 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
- Stephen Tancredi and Ronald Speidel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Stock Company, and Metlife, Inc., a Delaware Holding CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Doreen Pino v. Raymond Locascio, New York Hospital, Cornell Medical Center, Westchester DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Cabrera v. JakabovitzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.