Legal Opinion
Binta B. Ex Rel. S.A. v. Gordon
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided March 20, 2013No. 10-6005, 12-5532PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge.
Congress and the Supreme Court have made it abundantly clear that the aim of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 “is not for the purpose of aiding lawyers. The purpose of th[e] bill is to aid civil rights.” 122 Cong. Rec. 33,314 (Sept. 29, 1976) (remarks of Sen. Kennedy); Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 115, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (“awards under § 1988’ were never intended to produce windfalls to attorneys.... ”). Yet, Congress’ allowance for fees under § 1988 occasionally is misunderstood and misused. The original petition for fees in this case, for example, yielded…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Sosna v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Perez-Sosa v. GarlandCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2022
- Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Mike DeWineCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- Gibson Ex Rel. Gibson v. Forest Hills Local School District Board of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- John Doe v. Univ. of Mich.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2023
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.