Posted on 04/02/2009 3:39:11 PM PDT by Pondo
They should pay him with a counterfeit bill.
In some circumstances, even a plaintiff who formally "prevails" under § 1988 should receive no attorney's fees at all. A plaintiff who seeks compensatory damages but receives no more than nominal damages is often such a prevailing party. As we have held, a nominal damages award does render a plaintiff a prevailing party by allowing him to vindicate his "absolute" right to procedural due process through enforcement of a judgment against the defendant. Carey, 435 U. S., at 266. In a civil rights suit for damages, however, the awarding of nominal damages also highlights the plaintiff's failure to prove actual, compensable injury. Id., at 254-264. Whatever the constitutional basis for substantive liability, damages awarded in a § 1983 action "must always be designed `to compensate injuries caused by the [constitutional] deprivation.' " Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S., at 309 (quoting Carey, supra, at 265) (emphasis and brackets in original). When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, see Carey, supra, at 256-257, 264, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. In an apparent failure to heed our admonition that fee awardsunder § 1988 were never intended to " `produce windfalls to attorneys,' " Riverside v. Rivera, supra, at 580 (plurality opinion) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)), the District Court awarded $280,000 in attorney's fees without "consider[ing] the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award." Hensley, supra, at 438.
Methinks Mr. Lane might be having a bad evening. Also, if Mr. Churchill didn't sign a contingent fee agreement, he might be wondering how far is $1 will go. (Or a jerk like Churchill might just be conjuring up a new lawsuit against his esteemed counsel).
It’s like giving a waiter 2 cents.
Most view it as a settlement AGAINST Churchill.
See my post #62. The Supreme Court has held that $1 awards in civil rights cases do not warrant an award of attorneys’ fees.
$1??, bet that frosts his bo-didleys
this is coming to a head....this pimple needs a poppin’.
I know I should know this by now, and that the answer is probably as simple as a little Google search, so I will apologize in advance for being too lazy at the moment to do that (on my slow Blackberry), but...
I frequent www.weatherunderground.com for weather info... Is that at all related to the Weather Underground of Ayers’ association?
Sorry typo in #62 - They are 42 USC 1983 cases.
Well, there’s a little common sense. Thanks for the update.
This is exactly why I said that I wouldn’t predict what the jury would do. But I still dont expect the judge to give him his job back.
The wise thing for the jury to do was to find this asshat was fired for his academic corruption and be done with it. Instead, the legal record now stands that he was illegally terminated in retaliation for protected speech. Since he thus lost his job, I assume it cost him some money. I hope he still gets zilched, but it's something to be concerned about.
Hey Ward, the fake Indian : Don’t spend it all in one Weatherman bomb shop.
Churchill is no more an Indian than He is related to Winston Churchill!
His lawyer will get the dollar. Generally on contingency fee agreements, the plaintiff gets 2/3 of the net after payment of costs and fees.
It is also quite possible that since Mr. Churchill prevailed in the lawsuit, that he could be personally liable to his attorney for payment of thousands of dollars in costs.
Some contingency fee arrangements call for the plaintiff to be liable to their attorney for costs and filing fees in the event of a verdict for the plaintiff (regardless of the amount) with a waiver of those fees in the event of a defense verdict.
Is the dollar payable in wampum?
The jury gave Churchill $1
Churchill winning means he cannot bring the case to court again. $1 means that the jury felt he is a jerk.
To the speculation about whether Judge Naves would order CU to rehire WC -- Kevin O'Brien and I discussed this after closing arguments. Judge Naves has been a careful,even cautious, and practical jurist in this case. He is a peacemaker. We don't think he will order CU to rehire WC as that would perpetuate turmoil. More likely to say "CU, pay the damages, and WC, move on." But remember, no matter who wins, this case is going to go on and on.
http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/churchill-v-university-of-colorado-a-prognostication.html#comments
At this point, I think the judge can only impose equitable relief (reinstatement), not monetary damages because that is in the jury's purview. From what I read, the jury awarded him $0 for past economic damage and $1 for the violation of his civil rights. I think the possible reinstatement is the only issue to be decided by Judge Naves. Admittedly, I haven't follwed this case closely, but I think this is it for old Ward.
BWAHAHAHA! And richly deserved!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.