Hanrahan et al. v. Hampton et al.
446 U.S. 754 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988), a party must prevail on the merits of at least some of their claims to be considered a 'prevailing party' eligible for an interim award of attorney's fees. Winning a procedural or interlocutory victory that does not determine substantive rights, such as the reversal of a directed verdict, is insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- In 1969, law enforcement officials executed a search warrant for illegal weapons at a Chicago apartment occupied by nine members of the Black Panther Party.
- During the raid, two occupants were killed by gunfire and four others were wounded.
- Police arrested the seven surviving occupants of the apartment.
- The seven survivors were indicted by a state grand jury on charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery.
- The state indictments against the survivors were ultimately dismissed.
- The seven survivors, along with legal representatives for the two deceased individuals (Hampton et al.), filed suit against various state, local, and federal officials (Hanrahan et al.), alleging their constitutional rights had been violated.
Procedural Posture:
- The respondents (plaintiffs) sued the petitioners (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for civil rights violations.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case after an 18-month trial, the District Court granted directed verdicts in favor of all defendants.
- The respondents (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment for most of the defendants and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Court of Appeals also awarded the respondents their attorney's fees for the appeal, finding them to be 'prevailing parties' under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The petitioners (defendants-appellees) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the award of attorney's fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party 'prevail' for the purposes of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 by obtaining a reversal of a directed verdict on appeal and a remand for a new trial, thereby becoming eligible for an award of attorney's fees for the successful appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A party does not 'prevail' under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 merely by obtaining a procedural victory like the reversal of a directed verdict. The legislative history of the Act indicates Congress intended to permit interim fee awards only to a party who has established entitlement to some relief on the merits of their claims. An appellate victory that only grants the right to a new trial does not determine the 'substantial rights of the parties' because it does not resolve any of the underlying civil rights claims. The respondents are in the same practical position as if they had defeated a motion for a directed verdict at trial; they have not yet prevailed on any substantive issue and are therefore not entitled to attorney's fees at this stage.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Powell, J.
Yes, on the fees issue. The opinion joins the Court's reversal of the attorney's fees award, agreeing that the respondents are not prevailing parties under the statute. The dissent is on a separate matter, arguing that the petition for certiorari should have been granted in its entirety to review the Court of Appeals' decision to remand the case against the federal defendants, which the author believes was based on insufficient evidence and undermines the principles of qualified immunity.
Dissenting - Marshall, J.
Yes. Obtaining a reversal of a directed verdict should be considered prevailing on the merits because it determines the 'substantial rights of the parties.' This appellate victory is a major accomplishment that 'breathes new life into an otherwise dead lawsuit,' establishing that the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. If the defendants had successfully defended their directed verdict on appeal, they would have been considered the prevailing party because the lawsuit would be over. Symmetrically, the plaintiffs' success in reviving their case is a significant achievement on the merits that should qualify them for an interim award of attorney's fees.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the term 'prevailing party' under § 1988 by establishing a merits-based requirement for interim attorney's fee awards. It drew a crucial distinction between procedural victories, which merely allow litigation to continue, and substantive victories, which resolve a legal claim in a party's favor. This ruling prevents parties from collecting fees for intermediate procedural successes, ensuring that fee-shifting is reserved for those who have actually vindicated a legal right. The case reinforces the American Rule that parties bear their own costs unless a statute explicitly authorizes fee-shifting based on a merits determination, thus influencing the financial strategy and risk assessment in civil rights litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Hanrahan et al. v. Hampton et al.