Legal Opinion · Dissent

Silverman v. Villegas

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 30, 2008No. 49A02-0708-CV-754Published

1DissentBaker, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that the plaintiffs were the prevailing parties in this action for the purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 United States Code section 1988 (Section 1988). As the United States Supreme Court' observed in Farrar v. Hobby, a “plaintiff prevails when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” 506 U.S. 103, 111-12, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992). Moreover, in Nagy v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. James R. King v. Illinois State Board of Elections, David E. Murray, Lawrence E. Johnson v. Bobby Rush, Timuel Black, Al Johnson, InterveningCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
  3. Nagy Ex Rel. Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API