Walker v. CALUMET CITY, ILL.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that in order to be a prevailing party, the legal relationship of the parties must be materially altered by a court order
• explaining that an order that recites a party’s promise to do something is different from a command
• “[The plaintiff] did not obtain a consent decree in this case; hence, the second example does not apply.”
• a court order that recites defendant’s representations is not a stipulated settlement or consent decree, and therefore does not establish prevailing party status
• award of attorney fees to property owner under 42 U.S.C. § 1988[b] as prevailing party in action against city was reversed because dismissal of case for mootness did not impose judicial imprimatur that would permit awarding attorney fees under Buckhannon

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).