Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

City of Riverside Vs. Rivera

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 27, 1986

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

61 entries 5 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Hensley Vs. Eckerhart US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  2. Hughes Vs. Rowe US Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1980
  3. Blum Vs. Stenson US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1984
  4. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  5. Carey Vs. Piphus US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  6. U.S. 561 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera
    Search
  7. U.S. 561 (1986) City of Riverside v. Rivera
    Search
  8. the Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court remanded for reconsideration in light of the intervening decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  9. Under Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  10. Petitioners appealed only the attorney's fees award, which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Rivera v. City
    Search
  11. the writ, vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  12. writ, 474 U.S. 917 (1985), and now affirm the Court of Appeals. II A In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  13. expressly endorse the analysis set forth in Johnson v. Georgia
    Search
  14. seeks to vindicate important civil and constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms. See Carey v. Piphus
    Search
  15. a plaintiff recovers contributes significantly to the deterrence of civil rights violations in the future. See McCann v. Coughlin
    Search
  16. House Report at 2 (quoting Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  17. Ibid. (quoting Van Davis Page 477 U. S. 576 v. County
    Search
  18. emphasis added)). The Senate Report specifically approves of the fee awards made in cases such as Stanford Daily v. Zurcher
    Search
  19. Van Davis v. County
    Search
  20. and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Search
  21. Senate Report at 2. See also Kerr v. Quinn
    Search
  22. to award attorney's fees against plaintiffs who litigate frivolous or vexatious claims. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  23. after a pretrial settlement offer, where the judgment recovered by the plaintiff is less than the offer. Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  24. See DeFilippo v. Morizio
    Search
  25. Ramos v. Lamm
    Search
  26. McCann v. Coughlin
    Search
  27. Jones v. MacMillan
    Search
  28. Basiardanes v. City
    Search
  29. Furtado v. Bishop
    Search
  30. Coop v. City
    Search
  31. Perez v. University
    Search
  32. Walston v. School
    Search
  33. Copeland v. Marshall
    Search
  34. concurring in the judgment. I join only the Court's judgment. The plurality opinion reads our decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  35. On appeal, petitioners challenged only the fee award, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Rivera v. City
    Search
  36. the Court of Appeals' judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Hensley Page 477 U. S. 583 v. Eckerhart
    Search
  37. Court. I see no basis on which this Court now could hold that these findings are clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. Bessemer
    Search
  38. asserted analogy to personal injury claims unpersuasive in this context. Cf. Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura
    Search
  39. not explicit in this respect, it is clear that the increased filings of civil rights cases that began following Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  40. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting. In Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  41. claimed by respondents and their attorneys. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, Rivera v. City
    Search
  42. by including in its order a discussion of those factors in Hensley and Johnson v. Georgia
    Search
  43. U.S. at 461 U. S. 434 , quoting Copeland v. Marshall
    Search
  44. relief is the recovery of monetary damages by individual plaintiffs. Nor do we deal here with a case such as Carey v. Piphus
    Search
  45. S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976) (emphasis added), quoting Van Davis v. County
    Search
  46. Stanford Daily v. Zurcher
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court City of Riverside v. Rivera
    Search
  48. Rivera v. City
    Search
  49. of Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  50. the Court of Appeals. II A In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial