42 U.S.C. § 1973l
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: James R. King v. Illinois State Board of Elections, David E. Murray, Lawrence E. Johnson v. Bobby Rush, Timuel Black, Al
James R. King v. Illinois State Board of Elections, David E. Murray, Lawrence E. Johnson v. Bobby Rush, Timuel Black, Al (2005)
“The district court denied the motion and held that, although some of the plaintiffs did qualify as “prevailing parties” under the relevant statutes allowing for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973l (e) & 1988, “special circumstances” prevented it from…”
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (2009)
“” 42 U. S. C. §1973l(c)(2). The District Court concluded that this defini tion applied to the bailout provision in §4(a), and that the district did not qualify, since it is not a county or parish 12 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL.”
Chisom v. Roemer (1991)
“” See 42 U. S. C. § 1973l(c)(1). “Clearly, judges are ‘candidates for public or party office’ elected in a primary, special, or general election; therefore, section 2, by its express terms, extends to state judicial elections.”
City of Rome v. United States (1980)
“" [5] Section 14 (c) (2) of the Act, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 1973l (c) (2), provides: "The term `political subdivision' shall mean any county or parish, except that where registration for voting is not conducted under the supervision of a county or parish, the term shall…”
Connor v. Finch (1977)
“These appellants also challenge the District Court’s failure to award them reasonable attorneys’ fees, as authorized by § 402 of the 1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973l (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V), and the recent Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards…”
Shelby County, Alabama v. Loretta E. Lynch (2015)
“Section 14(e) was first codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e). On September 1, 2014, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel recodified the VRA and other provisions related to voting and elections into a new Title 52.”
State of Texas v. United States of America (2014)
“The former states that “[i]n any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee, reasonable expert fees, and…”
Caplin & Drysdale Chartered v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (2008)
“42 U.S.C.A. § 1973l(e). The statute in the case at bar also looks to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees.”
Effie Stewart v. J. Kenneth Blackwell (2006)
“The right to vote is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1973l (c)(1) *878 to include “all action necessary to make a vote effective” including “casting a ballot and having such ballot counted properly.”
Martin v. Mabus (1990)
“42 U.S.C. § 1973l (e) provides: In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendments, the Court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
Shaw v. Barr (1992)
“The federal defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is based on two grounds: (1) that under Section 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(b), this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain it, and (2) that to the extent it seeks judicial review of the…”
Joan Eddy, of the Estate of James Peter Eddy v. Colonial Life Insurance Company of America (1995)
“1982) (same, attorneys’ fees under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e)). Although the discretionary language in the fee-shifting provisions in these civil rights statutes 4 is similar to that in ERISA’s attorneys’ fees provision, see 29 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(b) — 2 cases
Shaw v. Barr (1992)
“The federal defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is based on two grounds: (1) that under Section 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(b), this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain it, and (2) that to the extent it seeks judicial review of the…”
Shaw v. Hunt (1994)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(1) — 7 cases
Chisom v. Roemer (1991)
“” See 42 U. S. C. § 1973l(c)(1). “Clearly, judges are ‘candidates for public or party office’ elected in a primary, special, or general election; therefore, section 2, by its express terms, extends to state judicial elections.”
Lewis v. Alamance County NC (1996)
Lyons v. Eldridge (2023)
Stewart v. Blackwell (2006)
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(2) — 1 case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (2009)
“” 42 U. S. C. §1973l(c)(2). The District Court concluded that this defini tion applied to the bailout provision in §4(a), and that the district did not qualify, since it is not a county or parish 12 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(3) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e) — 27 cases
Shelby County, Alabama v. Loretta E. Lynch (2015)
“Section 14(e) was first codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e). On September 1, 2014, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel recodified the VRA and other provisions related to voting and elections into a new Title 52.”
James R. King v. Illinois State Board of Elections, David E. Murray, Lawrence E. Johnson v. Bobby Rush, Timuel Black, Al (2005)
“The district court denied the motion and held that, although some of the plaintiffs did qualify as “prevailing parties” under the relevant statutes allowing for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973l (e) & 1988, “special circumstances” prevented it from…”
Caplin & Drysdale Chartered v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (2008)
“42 U.S.C.A. § 1973l(e). The statute in the case at bar also looks to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees.”
Joan Eddy, of the Estate of James Peter Eddy v. Colonial Life Insurance Company of America (1995)
“1982) (same, attorneys’ fees under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e)). Although the discretionary language in the fee-shifting provisions in these civil rights statutes 4 is similar to that in ERISA’s attorneys’ fees provision, see 29 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.