Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

08/23/95 SUSAN SHEPARD v. JEFFERY HANLEY AND

August 23, 1995

SUSAN SHEPARD, MATTHEW SHEPARD, AND MICHAEL SHEPARD, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
JEFFERY HANLEY AND KENNETH RAFTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court for the 12th Judicial Circuit Will County, Illinois. No. 92-L-14990. Honorable Martin Rudman, Judge, Presiding.

Present - Honorable Tom M. Lytton, Justice, Honorable Michael P. MC Cuskey, Justice, Honorable Kent Slater, Justice.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lytton

JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1990)). After the judge directed a verdict for the plaintiffs, the jury assessed only nominal damages. The judge then awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs, and defendants filed this appeal. We affirm.

I. FACTS

Responding to a complaint of loud music, Shorewood policemen Jeffery Hanley and Kenneth Rafter arrived at the home where Susan Shepard resided with her sons, Michael and Matthew. When no one responded to the doorbell, the officers looked in a basement window and saw fifteen-year-old Michael consuming beer. Returning to the front door, the policemen spoke to Michael and his sixteen-year-old brother Matthew. The brothers told the officers that they were babysitting two infants. They entered the house and observed the children sleeping on a couch. The officers then went to the basement, where the Shepard brothers admitted that they had been drinking, and arrested the boys.

The Shepards filed suit pursuant to section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1990)). Counts I and III alleged that Hanley and Rafter violated the United States and Illinois Constitutions' proscription against unreasonable search and seizure. Count II alleged that Hanley used unlawful force against Michael Shepard.

At the trial, the judge found that the officers had improperly entered the basement and granted plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on counts I and III. The jury awarded plaintiffs $1 in compensatory damages, denied plaintiffs' request for punitive damages and found for the defense on count II.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a petition for attorney fees of $36,177 plus costs pursuant to section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 (1990)). The trial judge awarded plaintiffs $14,297 in attorney fees and costs.

II. ANALYSIS

Section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act provides that a trial judge may award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party in civil rights litigation. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 (1990).) A fee award under section 1988 is within the discretion of the trial court, and we review the determination under the highly deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 (1990); Tampam, Inc. v. Property Tax Appeal Board (1991), 208 Ill. App. 3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 905, 153 Ill. Dec. 55.) We will also review an award to see if the trial judge erred as a matter of law. Beverly Bank v. Board of Review of Will County (1989), 193 Ill. App. 3d 130, 550 N.E.2d 567, 140 Ill. Dec. 682.

In Farrar v. Hobby (1992), 506 U.S. , 121 L. Ed. 2d 494, 113 S. Ct. 566, the United States Supreme Court addressed the propriety of awarding attorney fees to a civil rights plaintiff who obtains a judgment for nominal damages. The Court concluded that a civil rights plaintiff who wins nominal damages is a "prevailing party" under section 1988; however, the degree of a plaintiff's overall success should be considered as a factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award. Farrar, 506 U.S. at , 121 L. Ed. 2d at 504-5, 113 S. Ct. at .

In Farrar, the Supreme Court reversed an award of $280,000 in attorney fees where the plaintiff sued for $17,000,000 but recovered only $1. The trial judge erred when he simply calculated "the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate * * * without engaging in any measured exercise of discretion." (Farrar, 506 U.S. at , 121 L. Ed. 2d at 505, 113 S. Ct. at .) The Supreme Court reversed the award because the judge had failed to consider the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award. Farrar, 506 U.S. at , 121 L. Ed. 2d at 506, 113 S. Ct. at .

In this case, the record shows that the trial judge analyzed the plaintiff's petition for fees in light of Farrar. He reduced counsel's hourly rate from $150 per hour to $125 per hour, reduced the total number of hours in light of the verdict on count II, and then cut the remaining fee in half, considering the degree of plaintiff's success in the underlying action. Unlike Farrar, where the fee award was figured by the rigid application of a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.