Legal Opinion
Waterman v. Farmer
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 1, 2000No. Civil Action 98-1938 (AMW)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PISANO, District Judge. 1
Before the court is an application by plaintiffs, Richard Waterman and Michael Curtis, for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants filed opposition, and the Court decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ application is denied. 2
Background
This matter arises from a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in May 1998 by two prisoners incarcerated at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (the “ADTC”) in Avenel, New Jersey. The…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mall Real Estate, L.L.C., an Iowa Limited Liability Company v. City of Hamburg, an Iowa Municipal CorporationSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012
- Little v. TerhuneDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2002
- Wolff v. MooreDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2000
- Mall Real Estate, L.L.C., an Iowa Limited Liability Company v. City of Hamburg, an Iowa Municipal CorporationSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012