Simms v. Chaisson

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiffs were the prevailing party where they established defendant’s liability
• noting that one purpose behind statute providing for attorney’s fees in civil rights’ cases or cases involving hate crimes is to give incentives to attorneys, who represent those litigants, raising claims that involve small violations with hope of minimal monetary recovery
• affirming district court fee determination in which the district court reduced the requested fee by 20 percent because plaintiffs’ employment of two attorneys resulted in some redundancy in the work performed
• affirming award of attorney’s fees despite award of only nominal damages under Connecticut fair housing law where plaintiffs prevailed on a “significant legal issue” by vindicating their right to live without racial harassment and redressed defendants’ “outrageous” misconduct
• upholding a substantial award of attorney’s fees on emotional distress claim for racial harassment because “the plaintiffs’ successful action accomplished a public policy goal: [t]he general deterrence of acts of intimidation and harassment based on bias or bigotry.”
• our review is limited to ‘‘whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).