MANUELIAN v. KIRKLAND TRUST DATED 3/10/05, R. L. E. RANCH, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where the plaintiff achieved the “excellent” result of securing a permanent injunction against the legislation it challenged, it was entitled to fees and costs absent a showing of “special circumstances that would render an award of fees unjust”
• explaining that changes in law announced by the Supreme Court do not apply retroactively to collateral attacks on final judgments, to cases in which the parties have exhausted all appellate options, and to cases in which the deadline for filing a timely appeal has lapsed
• later developments in the law, which would prevent a party from prevailing if case were re-litigated at time of fees determination, are not special circumstances
• “‘court should not reduce attorney fees based on a simple ratio of successful claims to claims raised.’”
• “[L]ittle guidance has been provided by the Supreme Court as to precisely what constitutes a special circumstance that would defeat a fee award . . . .”
• “Because the result secured by Deja Vu--a final judgment that permanently enjoined the enforcement of Chapter 6.54--cannot fairly be labeled as anything short of excellent, it is entitled to a fully compensatory fee.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).