Lefemine v. Wideman
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-168 | 4th Cir. | Not Argued | Nov 5, 2012 | TBD | Per Curiam | OT 2012 |
Holding: In a lawsuit alleging that the conduct of government officials violates the Constitution, a plaintiff who obtains a permanent injunction but no money damages is a "prevailing party" because the injunction ordered the officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefitted the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to receive his attorney"s fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.
Judgment: Granted, vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on November 5, 2012.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng, October 25, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 06/27/2012 | Application (12A17) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 1, 2012 to July 31, 2012, submitted to The Chief Justice. |
| 07/09/2012 | Application (12A17) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 31, 2012. |
| 07/31/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 5, 2012) |
| 09/05/2012 | Brief of respondents Dan Wideman, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 09/18/2012 | Reply of petitioner Steve Lefemine filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/19/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012. |
| 10/09/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 12, 2012. |
| 10/15/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012. |
| 10/29/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 2, 2012. |
| 11/05/2012 | Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion) |
| 12/07/2012 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Holding: In a lawsuit alleging that the conduct of government officials violates the Constitution, a plaintiff who obtains a permanent injunction but no money damages is a “prevailing party” because the injunction ordered the officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefitted the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to receive his attorney”s fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.
Judgment:”Granted, vacated and remanded“in a per curiam opinion on November 5, 2012.