How cited: Cofield v. City of Atlanta · Go Syfert

Cofield v. City of Atlanta (1981)

green · 96 citation events across 24 courts. Showing the 23 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198120032026
But See · D.C. · signal: but see · 4 citations in this opinion
But see Brown v. Jefferson, 451 A.2d 74, 76 (D.C.1982) (construction by implication from subsequent enactments of different statutes not favored). [6] See also Cofield, 648 F.2d at 988 n. 4 ("There is no suggestion that an award of [42 U.S.C.] section 1988 attorney's fees should be in any way punitive"). [7] See Cazalas, 709 F.2d at 1057 (government's arguments in opposition to fee award "inadequate to overcome the strong national policy of open government and the crucial ro…
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 6 citations in this opinion
Id. at 988, n. 4 .
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 4 citations in this opinion
I agree with the statement of Judge Thomas A. Clark, made in his dissenting opinion in Lovell v. Alderete, supra, respecting an issue not reached by the majority there, that "[o]ne cannot justifiably assert that an attorney representing himself is more entitled to a fee [under the FOIA] than a lay person representing himself." 630 F.2d at 438 . 37 In Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987 (5th Cir.1981), we held a nonattorney pro se litigant was not eligible for an at…
Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Id. at 988, n. 4 .
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Since Kay, however, every 3 Gahagan notes this Court has described “[t]he history, language, and purpose of ” FOIA as “differ[ing] significantly from those of the civil rights statutes” and treated “decisions under one of the statutes [as] inapposite to cases arising under the other.” Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. Unit B June 1981).
green De Mino v. Achenbaum (2005)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
De Mino claims attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . “[T]he purpose of section 1988 is not to compensate a worthy advocate but to enable and encourage a wronged person to retain a lawyer.” Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. Unit B June 1981).
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1120 (7th Cir.1983); Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir.1981).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
See Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105, 1120 (CA7 1983) (prisoner action challenging constitutionality of disciplinary procedures), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 1282 , 79 L.Ed.2d 685 (1984); Turman v. Tuttle, 711 F.2d 148, 149 (CA10 1983) (prisoner action claiming due process, equal protection violations); Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311, 312-13 (CA3 1982) (prisoner action claiming due process violations); Wright v. Crowell, 674 F.2d 521, 522 (CA6 1982) (per curiam) …
employment discrimination action
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir.1981).
green Owen v. Lash (1982)
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981); Lo- vell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170, 171 (1st Cir. 1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979).
green Owen v. Lash (1982)
Rule Authority · 7th Cir.
Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170, 171 (1st Cir. 1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979).
Rule Authority · E.D. La. · 3 citations in this opinion
As defendants so amply point out in their brief: As was stated by the Fifth Circuit in Cofield v. City of Atlanta, supra, at 987, “Elsewhere we have stated that an act allowing attorney’s fees ‘is not passed for the benefit of attorneys but to enable litigants to obtain competent counsel____’” [Citations omitted; emphasis added].
green Duncan v. Poythress (1983)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ga. · 2 citations in this opinion
In Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B), the former Fifth Circuit held that a prevailing pro se litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees under section 1988.
green Peniman v. Cartwright (1982)
Rule Authority · S.D. Iowa · 2 citations in this opinion
Cofield, supra, at 988; Rheuark, 477 F.Supp. at 928-29 ; see also Grooms, supra, at 383.
Rule Authority · E.D. Wis.
Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981).
green Lev v. Lev (1987)
Rule Authority · Conn. App. Ct.
Almost all the courts that have considered the issue, however, have refused to grant attorney’s fees to pro se litigants, although for varying reasons. 3 See, e.g., Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir. 1981); Crooker v. United States Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1980); White v. Arlen Realty & Development Corporation, 614 F.2d 387, 388-89 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 923 , 100 S. Ct. 3016 , 65 L.
green Lawrence v. Staats (1984)
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
Courts from other Circuits, however, have overwhelmingly concluded that pro se plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney fees under § 1988, and by implication under § 2000e-5(k). 3 Pitts v. Vaughn, 679 F.2d 311, 312-13 (3d Cir.1982); Wright v. Cromwell, 674 F.2d 521, 522 (6th Cir.1982); Cofield v. *1379 Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir.1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170, 171 (1st Cir.1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir.1979); Owens-El v. Robinson, 498 F.…
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
See Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986 , 987-88 (5th Cir.1981) (§ 1988); Clarkson v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1396 , 1397 n. 2 (11th Cir.1987) (Privacy Act).
Cited (see also) · 11th Cir. · signal: see also
See also Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986 , 987 n. 3 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) ("The language of section 1988 tracks that of section 2000e-5(k).”). 11 .
"The language of section 1988 tracks that of section 2000e-5(k).”
green Redding v. Fairman (1984)
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Cofield v. Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986 (5th Cir.1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170 (1st Cir.1981).
green Redding v. Fairman (1983)
Cited (see also) · 7th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Cofield v. Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986 (5th Cir.1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F.2d 170 (1st Cir.1981).
green Cahill v. Kendall (2002)
Cited · S.D. Ala. · signal: see
See Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1981).
Cited · signal: see
See Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 986, 987-88 (5th Cir. 1981).