Farrar v. Hobby
- Decided
- December 14, 1992
- Docket
- 91-990
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,072 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that an award of nominal damages to plaintiffs in federal civil rights action is sufficient to be considered prevailing parties for attorneys' fees purposes — Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate Of Bernice Pauahi Bishop (2000)
- holding that even a plaintiff who is awarded only nominal relief is a "prevailing party" under this definition — Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue (1997)
- holding that when a § 1983 plaintiff obtains only nominal damages of one dollar, "the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all" — (untitled) (1996)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*105] Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide today whether a civil rights plaintiff who receives a nominal damages award is a “prevailing party” eligible to receive attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. § 1988. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed an award of attorney’s fees on the ground that a plaintiff receiving only nominal damages is not a prevailing party. Although we hold that such a plaintiff is a prevailing party, we affirm the denial of fees in this case.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.