FOLLOW US:


Attorney Advertising. This website is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.

 

This web site is designed to provide general information only and to help in the choice of appropriate legal counsel. The information contained herein should not be construed as legal advice. Legal jurisdictions differ on major and minor aspects of the law and each legal situation is unique; requiring that all legal situations be addressed with qualified legal counsel. Statutes and case law frequently change; the accuracy of this information can only be represented as of the date of publication.

 

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Submitting or receiving information web does not create an siteattorney client relationship. No attorney clientthis relationship will exist unless you meet with one of our attorneys and sign a retainer agreement. Please do not submit any information that is case specific, personal or confidential. 

  • LinkedIn App Icon
  • Blogger App Icon
  • Wix Twitter page
  • Wix Google+ page
  • RSS Social Icon
NADC_logo_200.png
Search
  • Cory Morris

Supreme Court reaffirms that Plaintiff's Civil Rights Lawsuit must be Frivolous, Unreasonable or


The Idaho Supreme Court decided to go against the longstanding precedent set forth by the Supreme Court nearly 40 years ago. Under federal law, a court has discretion to "allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee” in a civil rights lawsuit filed under 42 U. S. C. §1983. 42 U. S. C. §1988. In Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5 (1980) (per curiam), the Supreme Court interpreted §1988 to permit a prevailing defendant in such a suit to recoverfees only if “the plaintiff ’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Id., at 14 (quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 421 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Here, the Idaho Supreme Court awarded fees to a defendant without holding a hearing or making any sort of inquiry to determine that the Plaintiff's action was frivolous. In a two page decision, the Court, Per Curiam, reverses the Idaho Supreme Court holding that "[t]he Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or federal court, is bound by this Court’s interpretation of federal law." Plaintiff's Civil Rights attorneys can now breath a sigh of releif - this decision could have negatively impacted civil rights litigants by dissuading attorney's fearful of an award of Defendant's attorneys fees in a case that, otherwise, may have been worth bringing.

The case is James v. City of Boise, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-493_5h26.pdf.

#SupremeCourt #42USC1988 #CivilRights #AttorneysFees #42USC1983 #1983Litigation #EEOC #Frivolouslawsuit #JamesvBoise

68 views