Legal Opinion

Miller v. Commissioner of Correction

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided February 28, 1994No. 92-P-665PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.

The issue to be decided is whether the pro se plaintiff who hired and paid for standby counsel to assist him in this civil rights action is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees for such counsel. A judge of the Superior Court concluded that the plaintiff did not sustain his burden of justifying an award of attorney’s fees. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The claim for attorney’s fees is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1982), which provides that in actions brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), 3 “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ...…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Hagans v. LavineSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Procunier v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. RomeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Robbins v. KrockMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
  2. 'Abdullah v. Secretary of Public SafetyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
  3. Alliy v. Travelers InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
  4. Sykes v. Dish NetworkMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2005
  5. Abdullah v. RaponeMassachusetts Superior Court · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API