Supreme Court· 12/14/1992

Farrar v. Hobby

Citations

506 U.S. 103
113 S. Ct. 566
121 L. Ed. 2d 494
1992 U.S. LEXIS 7846

How courts have described this case

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

holding that even an award of nominal damages is sufficient to allow an award of attorney's fees
instructing that § 1988 was “never intended to produce windfalls to attorneys” (quotation omitted)
stating that a plaintiff “prevails” when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff
noting that an award of one dollar was nominal
rejecting an award of attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who requested $17 million in compensatory damages but won only nominal damages
failure to object to the jury charge and special interrogatories precludes our review in the absence of plain error or manifest miscarriage of justice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,782 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Farrar v. Hobby

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.