# Hanrahan v. Hampton

> Supreme Court of the United States · August 11, 1980 · 446 U.S. 754

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427948

## Case

- **Full name:** HANRAHAN Et Al. v. HAMPTON Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** August 11, 1980
- **Citations:** 446 U.S. 754; 100 S. Ct. 1987; 64 L. Ed. 2d 670; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 110
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall
- **Judges:** Powell, Marshall, Stevens, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 870 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427948

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, with respect to the plaintiff's claim for attorney’s fees in the plaintiff's action under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, "[i]t seems apparent from these passages that Congress intended to permit the interim award of counsel fees only when a …
- holding that in order to state “an adequate claim for relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove both a conspiracy and an actual deprivation of rights; mere proof of a conspiracy is insufficient to establish a section 1983 claim”
- holding that a preliminary injunction was not an enforceable judgment on the merits for prevailing party purposes
- holding that party did not prevail where interlocutory relief merely put the plaintiffs in the same position they “would have occupied if they had simply defeated the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in the trial court”
- holding that plaintiffs stated a claim for a violation of § 1983 when they alleged the defendants conspired to bring false charges in order to frustrate any possible redress and to conceal the true character of their activities

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
It is not clear to me that the award of attorney’s fees in this case was in error because “respondents have of course not prevailed on the merits of any of their claims.” Ante, at 758. The Court concedes that Congress in passing the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 contemplated the award of attorney’s fees pendente lite in certain instances, and that a litigant may be a “prevailing party” for purposes of the Act without obtaining final judgment on the merits following a full trial. It is sufficient if there has been a determination of “ ‘substantial rights of the parties,’ ” ante, at 757, quoting H. R. Rep. No. 94 — 1558, p. 8 (1976).
In the instant case, respondents have been successful in obtaining reversal on appeal of a directed verdict entered against them. While this “only” means that respondents are entitled to a trial of their cause, ante, at 758, that is a major accomplishment which determines “substantial rights of the parties.” Had petitioners been successful in defending their directed verdict on appeal, there is no doubt that they would be considered to have prevailed on the merits; the lawsuit would have been finished. Obtaining an appellate order requiring that a new trial be held after an action to enforce civil rights has been prematurely terminated similarly is an achievement reflecting on the merits of the case. The decision of the Court of Appeals, establishing that respondents produced sufficient evidence to warrant sending their case to the jury, breathes new life into an otherwise dead lawsuit. Without full briefing and oral argument, I am unable to *767 say that this does not fall within the category of legal victories which determine “substantial rights of the parties” for purposes of the Act.
In my view, the attorney’s fees issue is sufficiently difficult to warrant the plenary attention of this Court rather than summary reversal. Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427948. Public record. Not legal advice.