Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantlitigationattorneyappealcivil rights
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantattorney

Related Cases

Teichner by Teichner v. W & J Holsteins, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 977, 478 N.E.2d 177, 489 N.Y.S.2d 36
View Case »
Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626
View Case »
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 247 F.R.D. 567, 69 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1035
View Case »
Curry v. Slansky, 637 F.Supp. 947
View Case »
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572, 1975-1 Trade Cases P 60,355
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1, 38 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 124, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,396, 53 USLW 4903, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1297

Facts

The plaintiff, Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, claiming that the state had violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act. After the lawsuit was filed, the state changed its policy regarding the licensing of assisted living facilities, which the plaintiff argued was a victory. The plaintiff sought attorney's fees under § 1988, claiming they were a prevailing party due to the policy change. The district court awarded fees, but the state appealed.

The plaintiff, Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, claiming that the state had violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

Issue

The main issue was whether a plaintiff can be considered a 'prevailing party' under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when they achieve a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct without a formal court order.

Whether a plaintiff can be considered a 'prevailing party' under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when they achieve a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct without a formal court order.

Rule

The Supreme Court ruled that to be considered a 'prevailing party' under § 1988, a plaintiff must obtain a court-ordered change in the legal relationship between the parties, not merely a voluntary change by the defendant.

To be considered a 'prevailing party' under § 1988, a plaintiff must obtain a court-ordered change in the legal relationship between the parties.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the definition of 'prevailing party' and concluded that the term implies a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship between the parties. The Court emphasized that a mere voluntary change in conduct by the defendant does not suffice to confer prevailing party status. The Court also noted that this interpretation aligns with the purpose of § 1988, which is to encourage the enforcement of civil rights through litigation.

The Court analyzed the definition of 'prevailing party' and concluded that the term implies a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship between the parties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that Buckhannon was not a prevailing party and therefore not entitled to attorney's fees under § 1988.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that Buckhannon was not a prevailing party and therefore not entitled to attorney's fees under § 1988.

Who won?

The state of West Virginia prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff did not meet the criteria for being a 'prevailing party' under § 1988.

The state of West Virginia prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff did not meet the criteria for being a 'prevailing party' under § 1988.

You must be