Smith v. Fitchburg Public Schools

How courts have described this case

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

• finding ruling that defendant must undertake a specific action by a certain date lacked judicial imprimatur because “[a] closer look at the record” revealed that directive merely “require[ed defendant] to follow through with what [it] had already voluntarily promised to do”
• “[i]n this circuit, we have not squarely addressed whether judgments on the merits or consent decrees are the only forms of relief sufficient to confer prevailing party status”
• \[W]e do not foreclose the possibility of a broad reading [of Buckhannon] . . . .\
• \The Court expressly rejected the '\catalyst theory,\ which posits that a plaintiff is a \prevailing party\ if it achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct.'\ (quoting Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601)
• interpreting Section 30-14-1(B) to require “actual 21 knowledge”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).