green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Fallen v. GREP Southwest, LLC
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, concluded: “Because the district court found that the most important aspect of the judgment was the vindication of plaintiffs’ civil rights and its message to the police department, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s award [of attorneys’ fees] was an abuse of discretion.” Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d at 1550-51.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Neece v. Internal Revenue Service of the United States
In Nephew, the defendants appealed, and, on appeal, we affirmed, holding that a partially prevailing plaintiff could recover attorney’s fees for legal services rendered on an unsuccessful claim, where the most important aspect of the judgment was a vindication of plaintiffs’ civil rights and a “message to the police department.” Id. at 1550-51.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peggy J. Neece and Buel H. Neece v. Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America United States of America and First National Bank of Turley, N.A., Peggy J. Neece and Buel H. Neece v. Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America United States of America and First National Bank of Turley, N.A.
The district court later awarded plaintiffs the sum of $12,500 as attorney's fees. 35 In Nephew, the defendants appealed, and, on appeal, we affirmed, holding that a partially prevailing plaintiff could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered on an unsuccessful claim, where the most important aspect of the judgment was a vindication of plaintiffs' civil rights and a "message to the police department." Id. at 1550-51.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Herman Hastings, Plaintiff-Appellee-,Cross-Appellant v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades Local 807, Defendant-Appellant-,Cross-Appellee
Its Mayor & City Council, 830 F.2d 1547, 1548-50 (10th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Drez v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
The court noted that discretion to award fees lies ultimately with the trial court, 830 F.2d at 1550, and approved the following method of analysis (derived from Hemley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 , 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939-40 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)): First, using the factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 , 717-19 (5th Cir.1974) (as incorporated in the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ), determine the reasonable number of hours spent in litigating the case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Villescas v. Richardson
See Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547 (10th Cir.1987)(en banc)(holding that even when a prevailing party is awarded only nominal damages of one dollar, an award of $ 12,500 in attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion where the most important aspect of the judgment was the vindication of plaintiffs’ civil rights).
discussed
Cited "see"
Domegan v. Ponte
But ___ cf. Ganey v. Edwards, 759 F.2d 337, 339 (4th Cir. 1985) (award of ___ _____ _______ nominal damages left to jury). 15 15 Rico, 600 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1979) ("Fees may not be denied ____ simply because only nominal damages are awarded."); Ganey v. _____ Edwards, 759 F.2d 337, 339-40 (4th Cir. 1985) (liability determi- _______ nation need not even be accompanied by nominal damage award); Burt v. Abel, 585 F.2d 613, 618 (4th Cir. 1978) (nominal damage ____ ____ award sufficient); Basiardanes v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d ___________ __________________ 1203, 1220 (5th Cir. 1982) (judgmen…
discussed
Cited "see"
Dennis J. Domegan v. Joseph Ponte, (Two Cases)
(2×)
Perez v. University of Puerto Rico, 600 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1979) (“Fees may not be denied simply because only nominal damages are awarded.”); Ganey v. Edwards, 759 F.2d 337, 339-40 (4th Cir.1985) (liability determination need not even be accompanied by nominal damage award); Burt v. Abel, 585 F.2d 613, 618 (4th Cir.1978) (nominal damage award sufficient); Basiardanes v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203, 1220 (5th Cir.1982) (judgment for nominal damages may warrant fee award); Skoda v. Fontani, 646 F.2d 1193, 1194 (7th Cir.1981) (per cu-riam) ($1.00 judgment satisfies ‘.‘prevailing part…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Obenauf v. Frontier Financial Group, Inc.
See, e.g., Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547 , 1550-51 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vincent Koopman v. Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, Kansas, and Roger Fairbanks
See, e.g., Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (holding that even though plaintiffs were awarded nominal damages, attorney’s fees could be awarded where the amount of the fee was reduced because plaintiffs did not succeed on all counts), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 976 , 108 S.Ct. 1269 , 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988). 5 It is indisputable that Koopman did not prove actual damages and so under Farrar is not entitled to full reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Romberg v. Nichols
In fact, as the City of Riverside plurality also explained, the socially beneficial "deterrent effect [of civil rights suits] is particularly evident in the area of individual police misconduct, where injunctive relief generally is unavailable." Id. at 575 , 106 S.Ct. at 2694 (plurality opinion); see also Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547 , 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc) ("vindication [of civil rights] often can include important social benefits that are not reflected in nominal damages"), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 976 , 108 S.Ct. 1269 , 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988). 30 The dispositive inquiry for…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Romberg v. Nichols
In fact, as the City of Riverside plurality also explained, the socially beneficial "deterrent effect [of civil rights suits] is particularly evident in the area of individual police misconduct, where injunctive relief generally is unavailable." Id. at 575 , 106 S.Ct. at 2694 (plurality opinion); see also Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547 , 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc) ("vindication [of civil rights] often can include important social benefits that are not reflected in nominal damages"), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 976 , 108 S.Ct. 1269 , 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988). 30 The dispositive inquiry for…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Romberg v. Nichols
In fact, as the City of Riverside plurality also explained, the socially beneficial “deterrent effect [of civil rights suits] is particularly evident in the area of individual police misconduct, where injunctive relief generally is unavailable.” Id. at 575 , 106 S.Ct. at 2694 (plurality opinion); see also Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547, 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc) (“vindication [of civil rights] often can include important social benefits that are not reflected in nominal damages”), ce rt. denied, 485 U.S. 976 , 108 S.Ct. 1269 , 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Romberg v. Nichols
In fact, as the City of Riverside plurality also explained, the socially beneficial “deterrent effect [of civil rights suits] is particularly evident in the area of individual police misconduct, where injunctive relief generally is unavailable.” Id. at 575 , 106 S.Ct. at 2694 (plurality opinion); see also Nephew v. City of Aurora, 830 F.2d 1547, 1549 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc) (“vindication [of civil rights] often can include important social benefits that are not reflected in nominal damages”), ce rt. denied, 485 U.S. 976 , 108 S.Ct. 1269 , 99 L.Ed.2d 481 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Coos Bay Care Center, an Oregon Corporation Hannah Schwanke, Guardian Ad Litem for David and Steven Schwanke
v.
State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources Richard C. Ladd
v.
State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources Richard C. Ladd
85-4049.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 29, 1987.
830 F.2d 1547
Published
COOS BAY CARE CENTER, an Oregon corporation; Hannah
Schwanke, Guardian Ad Litem for David and Steven
Schwanke, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES; Richard C.
Ladd, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 85-4049.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1987.
Lojek & Hall, Donald W. Lojek, Boise, Idaho, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Department of Justice, Philip Schradle, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Salem, Or., for defendants-appellees.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Before WRIGHT, GOODWIN and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
Pursuant to the Order of the United States Supreme Court issued October 5, 1987, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 52, 97 L.Ed.2d ----, vacating the judgment of this court, the above case is hereby remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon for consideration of the suggestion of mootness.