Judges disagree on attorney fee provision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legal battle that was once about Indiana's requirements to obtain a driver's license or state identification turned into a tug-of-war appeal about attorney fees.

Both times, three illegal immigrants won their case before the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In Joel Silverman, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Miguel Villegas, Betty Doe, Mary Smith, et al., No. 49A02-0708-CV-754, the court decided 2-1 today that plaintiffs are prevailing parties for succeeding on a state statutory claim that is pendent to a substantial federal constitutional claim arising from the same case.

The ruling follows a previous appellate court decision in August 2005 first going in the plaintiffs' favor. Following a 2002 rule change about what documents were required to get an ID, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana sued on procedural and constitutional grounds to have the rule thrown out. The appellate court found the rule wasn't properly enacted and didn't address the larger constitutional issues, though the rule was ultimately adopted properly in early 2006.

After the first win, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in their favor and then to secure attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S. Code 1988 (Section 1988). The trial court granted that motion and ordered $112,468 be paid, but the Attorney General's office appealed and argued the plaintiffs hadn't suffered any injury through federal claims and the provision didn't apply.

The appellate panel affirmed the lower decision, finding that the court left the federal claim undecided three years ago and that the successful state law claim entitled them to "prevailing party" status for purposes of the attorney fee argument because it was part of the same "common nucleus of operative fact."

But Chief Judge John Baker disagreed, writing that the majority's opinion goes against the rationale of the attorney fee provision in the U.S. Code. He wrote the parties shouldn't be considered prevailing parties because they didn't succeed on the federal claims and the rule-making grounds the plaintiffs did succeed on weren't related to the underlying issues they'd sued over.

"The majority seemingly takes the view that a claimant need only advance 'some' type of constitutional claim and succeed on a non-related state claim to become entitled to attorneys' fees. ... To me, such a notion contradicts the spirit of the Section 1988 provisions," the chief judge wrote.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.