Palmetto Properties, Inc. And Gregory A. Schirmer v. County of Dupage and Joseph E. Birkett

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that county repeal of ordinance after judicial determination is “most persuasively construed as involuntary – indeed exhibiting judicial imprimatur”
• explaining that “prevailing party” determination may require “meticulous analysis of the particular judgments and orders entered in a case”
• affirming fee 6 award where county repealed challenged ordinance after district court ruled it unconstitutional
• even a party which obtained only partial summary judgment, without any compensatory damages, was entitled to attorney's fees as prevailing party
• where the defendant county repealed an ordinance “only after . . . and presumably because of” the district court’s determination that the ordinance was unconstitutional, that repeal was “involuntary – indeed exhibiting judicial imprimatur”
• “It would defy reason and contradict the definition of ‘prevailing party’ under Buckhannon . . . to hold that simply because the district court abstained from entering a final order . . . [plaintiff] somehow did not obtain a ‘judicially sanctioned change.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).