Concerned Democrats Of Florida v. Reno
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lisa Romain v. Marketa Walters (5th Cir. 2017)
- Mitten v. Muscogee County School District (11th Cir. 1989)
- Mitten ex rel. Mitten v. Muscogee County School District (11th Cir. 1989)
- Karl J. Kirchberg v. Joan Paillot Feenstra, Defendant-Third-Party v. David C. Treen and State of Louisiana, Third-Party (3d Cir. 1983)
- International Oceanic Enterprises, Inc. Ioe v. Menton (5th Cir. 1980)
- Carl McCulloch and Nora Dell McCulloch Cross-Appellants v. Thomas Glasgow, Cross-Appellees (5th Cir. 1980)
- Concerned Democrats of Florida and Edward Cohen, President of Concerned Democrats v. Janet Reno, State Attorney of Dade County, Florida (5th Cir. 1980)
- Concerned Democrats of Florida v. Reno (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1980)
- Wells v. Hutchinson (District Court, E.D. Texas 1980)
- International Oceanic Enterprises, Inc. v. Menton (5th Cir. 1980)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
CONCERNED DEMOCRATS OF FLORIDA, and Edward Cohen, President
of Concerned Democrats of Florida, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Janet RENO, State Attorney of Dade County, Florida, and Jim
Smith, Attorney General of Florida, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 79-1652.
Summary Calendar.*
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 31, 1979.
Steven Wisotsky, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for Hon. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before CLARK, GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellants prevailed below in a civil rights suit in which they persuaded the district court to interfere by injunction with a portion of the Florida judicial selection plan forbidding partisan political organizations from endorsing judicial candidates. They sought an award of attorneys' fees for this advancement of the public interest at their private instance, but were rebuffed by a denial stating merely that such an award "would be inappropriate in this case."
42 U.S.C. Section 1988 places the award of such fees within the trial court's discretion but it is settled law in this circuit that this means more than it appears to say and that such prevailing parties as plaintiff should ordinarily recover attorneys' fees unless special circumstances would render an award of them unjust. See Morrow v. Dillard, 580 F.2d 1284, 1300 (5th Cir. 1978). We cannot determine from this record or from the court's brief reference to inappropriateness why fees were denied. We therefore vacate the court's order of denial and remand for an appropriate award of fees or for a finding on and statement of the special circumstances which render such an award unjust. See Criterion Club v. Board of Comm'rs, 594 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1979).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.