Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1985–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Eckerhartred2 sentences1996Ga. 1983) (plaintiff not entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 when both a § 1983 and a pendent state-law claim are presented to a jury and the party prevails on the pendent claim only); compare Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 461 U. S. at 433 (plaintiff entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 if, in bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the forensic unit of a state hospital, they succeeded on any significant issue in federal civil rights litigation which achieved some of the benefits the parties sought in bringing suit; no state la 1996Ga. 1983) (plaintiff not entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 when both a § 1983 and a pendent state-law claim are presented to a jury and the party prevails on the pendent claim only); compare Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 461 U. S. at 433 (plaintiff entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 if, in bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the forensic unit of a state hospital, they succeeded on any significant issue in federal civil rights litigation which achieved some of the benefits the parties sought in bringing suit; no state la | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. District of Columbiagreen2 sentences1996Ga. 1983) (plaintiff not entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 when both a § 1983 and a pendent state-law claim are presented to a jury and the party prevails on the pendent claim only); compare Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 461 U. S. at 433 (plaintiff entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 if, in bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the forensic unit of a state hospital, they succeeded on any significant issue in federal civil rights litigation which achieved some of the benefits the parties sought in bringing suit; no state la 1996Ga. 1983) (plaintiff not entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 when both a § 1983 and a pendent state-law claim are presented to a jury and the party prevails on the pendent claim only); compare Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 461 U. S. at 433 (plaintiff entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 1988 if, in bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of treatment and conditions at the forensic unit of a state hospital, they succeeded on any significant issue in federal civil rights litigation which achieved some of the benefits the parties sought in bringing suit; no state la | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Rowegreen2 sentences1985Although the court has discretion to award attorney fees under 42 USC § 1988 to the prevailing party in a case brought under 42 USC § 1983 , the court’s discretion, where the prevailing party is the defendant, is limited to those instances where the plaintiff's action was “groundless or without foundation.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5, 14 (101 SC 173, 66 LE2d 163) (1980). 1985Although the court has discretion to award attorney fees under 42 USC § 1988 to the prevailing party in a case brought under 42 USC § 1983 , the court’s discretion, where the prevailing party is the defendant, is limited to those instances where the plaintiff's action was “groundless or without foundation.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5, 14 (101 SC 173, 66 LE2d 163) (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Hanrahan v. Hamptongreen2 sentences1985Hensley v. Eckerhart, ___ U. S. ___ (103 SC 1933, 76 LE2d 40) (1983); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U. S. 754, 756 (100 SC 1987, 64 LE2d 670) (1980). 1985Hensley v. Eckerhart, _ U. S. _ (103 SC 1933, 76 LE2d 40) (1983); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U. S. 754, 756 (100 SC 1987, 64 LE2d 670) (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias
green
2 sentences1993The State amended its answer to assert several additional defenses, including the assertion that appellant did not have standing to seek a refund under OCGA § 48-2-35. [2] We entertain the State's standing argument because the consideration of a remedy "may well be ... obviated by issues of state law." Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 , supra at 277. [3] 2. "[A] particular remedy is not available to a party who has no entitlement to the right sought to be secured." Ragsdale v. New England *611 Land &c. 1993The State amended its answer to assert several additional defenses, including the assertion that appellant did not have standing to seek a refund under OCGA § 48-2-35. 2 We entertain the State’s standing argument because the consideration of a remedy “may well be . . . obviated by issues of state law.” Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263 , supra at 277. 3 2. “[A] particular remedy is not available to a party who has no entitlement to the right sought to be secured.” Ragsdale v. New Eng land Land &c. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Blanchard v. Bergeron
green
1 sentence1992Finney did not retain private counsel either by paying a retainer fee or entering into a contingent fee arrangement, thereby factually distinguishing Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U. S. 87 (109 SC 939, 103 LE2d 67) (1989), cited by Finney (attorney fees awardable under 42 USC § 1988 not limited to amount in contingent fee contract). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.