Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Farrar Vs. Hobby

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 07, 1992

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

67 entries 5 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Rhodes Vs. Stewart US Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1988
  2. Hensley Vs. Eckerhart US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  3. Carey Vs. Piphus US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  4. Blanchard Vs. Bergeron US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1989
  5. Maher Vs. Gagne US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1980
  6. U.S. 103 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Farrar Et Al., Coadministrators of Estate of Farrar, Deceased V. Hobby
    Search
  7. between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  8. Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  9. Independent School Dist., 489 U. S. 782. Here, petitioners were entitled to nominal damages under Carey v. Piphus
    Search
  10. on the litigation as a whole may be excessive if a plaintiff achieves only partial or limited success. Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  11. Id., at A-6. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Farrar v. Cain
    Search
  12. the fee award on August 31, 1990. A divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed the fee award. Es tate of Farrar v. Cain
    Search
  13. F.2d 1311 (1991). After reviewing our decisions in Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  14. U. S. 755 (1987), Rhodes v. Stewart
    Search
  15. U. S. 1 (1988) (per curiam), and Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  16. made clear that Joseph Farrar alone was to receive nominal damages for violation of his due process rights, Farrar v. Cain
    Search
  17. for the Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. 941 F. 2d, at 1316-1317, and nn. 22 and 26. See Ruggiero v. Krzeminski
    Search
  18. Coleman v. Turner
    Search
  19. Scofield v. Hillsborough
    Search
  20. Nephew v. Aurora
    Search
  21. Garner v. Wal-Mart
    Search
  22. and held that a nominal damages award does confer prevailing party status on a civil rights plaintiff. Domegan v. Ponte
    Search
  23. Romberg v. Nichols
    Search
  24. C. J., concurring). The Fourth Circuit has adopted a position consistent with the Fifth Circuit's. Law rence v. Hinton
    Search
  25. Spencer v. General
    Search
  26. U. S. 424 , 433 (1983) (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe
    Search
  27. Ken tucky v. Graham
    Search
  28. S. 159 , 165 (1985). We have elaborated on the definition of prevailing party in three recent cases. In Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  29. Id., at 761 (emphasis omitted). In Rhodes v. Stewart
    Search
  30. Ibid. 3 3 Similarly, the plaintiff in Hewitt v. Helms
    Search
  31. hardly render him, 111 Finally, in Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  32. whom fees are sought, Hewitt, supra, at 760, or comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement, Maher v. Gagne
    Search
  33. suit absent proof of actual injury. Id., at 264. Accord, Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura
    Search
  34. neither enters judgment for defendant on the merits nor declares the defendant's legal immunity to suit. Cf. Kentucky v. Graham
    Search
  35. Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers
    Search
  36. of a fee award under Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  37. Hensley, supra, at 436. Accord, Marek v. Chesny
    Search
  38. Riverside v. Rivera
    Search
  39. Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura
    Search
  40. prevailing party in certain civil rights cases, a practice this Court had disapproved in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  41. plaintiffs who, although technically prevailing parties, had achieved only de minimis success. See, e. g., Tatum v. Morton
    Search
  42. see also Mills v. Electric
    Search
  43. quoting Bosch v. Meeker
    Search
  44. cf. Ruckelshaus v. Sierra
    Search
  45. Congress did not intend to restore every detail of pre-Alyeska practice, see West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
    Search
  46. a prevailing party costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (d) where the victory was purely technical. Lewis v. Pennington
    Search
  47. Syllabus Farrar Et Al., Coadministrators of Estate of Farrar, Deceased V. Hobby
    Search
  48. Farrar v. Cain
    Search
  49. of Farrar v. Cain
    Search
  50. and Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial