“Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI), in tandem with the Fourteenth Amendment, the attorney fees permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are recoverable, notwithstanding a provision of a state constitution that might otherwise afford immunity to the party against whom the fees are sought.”
How later courts described this case
- “Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI), in tandem with the Fourteenth Amendment, the attorney fees permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are recoverable, notwithstanding a provision of a state constitution that might otherwise afford immunity to the party against whom the fees are sought.”
- expressing concern as to whetherBrown v. State, 565 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1990), which awarded attorney fees against the State, was consistent with § 14
- '[A] decision on the merits disposing of all claims is a final decision from which an appeal must be timely taken, whether a request for attorney fees remains for adjudication.'
- "[W]e will not interpret the trial court's silence in its [final order] as to Waldrop's request for attorney fees as a denial of that request."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Because I understand the holding of the majority to be that Waldrop has not shown that his lawsuit resulted in a common benefit to the general public, I concur.