Deborah Petersen v. Byron Gibson, Officer, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff was not a prevailing party, notwithstanding judgment that her rights were violated, because the judgment did not afford judicial relief and the ultimate settlement that closed the case lacked judicial imprimatur
• noting that catalyst theory necessitated evaluation of subjective motivations of the parties and Buckhannon rejected reliance on such as part of prevailing party analysis
• noting that catalyst theory necessitated evaluation of subjective motivations of the parties and Buckhannon rejected reliance on such as part of prevailing party analysis
• observing that “[t]he Supreme Court . . . has recognized that the analysis of costs may differ from that of fees”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).