Legal Opinion
Hartman v. Winnebago County
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided February 5, 1997No. 96-0596PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, J.
Judy Hartman and others (collectively, Hartman) in this class action suit appeal from an order denying their motion for an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The circuit court determined that Hartman was not entitled to attorney's fees because they had not demonstrated that they were "prevailing parties" in this suit and because their motion for attorney's fees was untimely. We conclude that Winnebago County and others (collectively, the County) were not unfairly surprised or prejudiced by Hartman's motion for attorney's fees, thereby rendering the motion timely. We further…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hartman v. Winnebago CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
- Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
- Estate of Burgess v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997
- Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998