nominal damage award represents de minimis success where sole purpose of lawsuit was recovery of damages
How later courts described this case
- nominal damage award represents de minimis success where sole purpose of lawsuit was recovery of damages
- requiring that a plaintiff must prove “an actual deprivation of a constitutional right”
- where sole purpose of lawsuit was to recover damages
- denying recovery of fees after one-dollar judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Romberg v. Nichols, 970 F.2d 512 (1992)
We believe Farrar, which rested on the assumption that "the sole object of [the] suit [was] to recover money damages," id. at 1315, is distinguishable on that basis.
Distinguished by Romberg v. Nichols, 953 F.2d 1152 (1992)
We believe Farrar, which rested on the assumption that "the sole object of [the] suit [was] to recover money damages," id. at 1315, is distinguishable on that basis.
Distinguished by Romberg v. Nichols, 953 F.2d 1152 (1992)
We believe Farrar, which rested on the assumption that “the sole object of [the] suit [was] to recover money damages,” id. at 1315, is distinguishable on that basis.
The opinion
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I have difficulty understanding the justification for the finding that Governor Hobby violated plaintiffs’ civil rights, that issue has been foreclosed. The majority holds that where plaintiff obtains only nominal damages for his constitutional deprivation, he cannot be considered the prevailing party. I disagree and do not read Hewitt, Rhodes and Garland to go so far. The plaintiffs prevailed in their claim although the amount of their benefit was only nominal. I do not regard that result as insignificant. I would, however, order reconsideration of the amount of the fee under these circumstances.