|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
6159 Lawyerdude: 805 469 9121. Revised Tuesday, August 9, 2005.
Newman v Piggie Park (1968)
390 U.S. 400
This page is http://www.tompeace.s5.com/piggie.html and www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/piggie.html
Related page:
This case is listed on my top ten list of most liberating cases: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5095.html
This case at findlaw is: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/390/400.html
Lawyerdude’s analysis - the good parts: The purple words are live links. Click to go there.
U.S. Supreme Court
NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, 390 U.S. 400 (1968)
390 U.S. 400
NEWMAN ET AL. v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
No. 339.
Argued March 7, 1968.
Decided March 18, 1968.
One who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee under 204 (b) unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust, and should not be limited, as the Court of Appeals held, to an award of counsel fees only if the defenses advanced were "for purposes of delay and not in good faith."
377 F.2d 433, modified and affirmed.
Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were James M. Nabrit III, Michael Meltsner, Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., and Hemphill P. Pride II.
No appearance for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners instituted this class action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 204 (a), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3 (a), to enjoin racial discrimination at five drive-in restaurants and a sandwich shop owned and operated by the respondents in South Carolina. The District Court held that the operation of each of the respondents' restaurants affected commerce within the meaning of 201 (c) (2), 78 Stat. 243, 42 U.S.C. 2000a (c) (2), and found, on undisputed evidence, that Negroes had been discriminated against at all six of the restaurants. 256 F. Supp. 941, 947, 951. But the District Court erroneously concluded that Title II does not cover drive-in restaurants of the sort involved in this case. 256 F. Supp., at 951-953. Thus the court enjoined [390 U.S. 400, 401] racial discrimination only at the respondents' sandwich shop. Id., at 953.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's refusal to enjoin discrimination at the drive-in establishments, 377 F.2d 433, 435-436, and then directed its attention to that section of Title II which provides that "the prevailing party" is entitled to "a reasonable attorney's fee" in the court's "discretion." 204 (b), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3 (b). 1 In remanding the case, the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to award counsel fees only to the extent that the respondents' defenses had been advanced "for purposes of delay and not in good faith." 377 F.2d, at 437. We granted certiorari to decide whether this subjective standard properly effectuates the purposes of the counsel-fee provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 389 U.S. 815 . We hold that it does not.
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law. 2 A Title II suit is thus private in form only. [390 U.S. 400, 402] When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a "private attorney general," vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. 3 If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees - not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief under Title II. 4
It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Because no such circumstances are present here, 5 the District Court on remand should [390 U.S. 400, 403] include reasonable counsel fees as part of the costs to be assessed against the respondents. As so modified, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Footnotes
[ Footnote 1 ] "In any action commenced pursuant to this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person." 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3 (b).
[ Footnote 2 ] In this connection, it is noteworthy that 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3 (a) permits intervention by the Attorney General in privately initiated Title II suits "of general public importance" and provides that, "in such circumstances as the court may deem just," a district court may "appoint an attorney for [the] complaint and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security." Only where a "pattern or practice" of discrimination is reasonably believed to exist may the Attorney General himself institute a civil action for injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. 2000a-5.
[ Footnote 3 ] See S. Rep. No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, at 11, 24 (1964); H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, at 18 (1963); H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, at 1-2 (1963).
[ Footnote 4 ] If Congress' objective had been to authorize the assessment of attorneys' fees against defendants who make completely groundless contentions for purposes of delay, no new statutory provision would have been necessary, for it has long been held that a federal court may award counsel fees to a successful plaintiff where a defense has been maintained "in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons." 6 Moore's Federal Practice 1352 (1966 ed.).
[ Footnote 5 ] Indeed, this is not even a borderline case, for the respondents interposed defenses so patently frivolous that a denial of counsel fees to the petitioners would be manifestly inequitable. Thus, for example, the "fact that the defendants had discriminated both at [the] drive-ins and at [the sandwich shop] was . . . denied . . . [although] the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. Includable in the same category are defendants' contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 , . . . that the Act was unconstitutional [390 U.S. 400, 403] on the very grounds foreclosed by McClung; and defendants' contention that the Act was invalid because it `contravenes the will of God' and constitutes an interference with the `free exercise of the Defendant's religion.'" 377 F.2d 433, 437-438 (separate opinion of Judge Winter). [390 U.S. 400, 404]
Crass Promotional Links:
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 469 9121. Email: Dlawyerdude@Gmail.com Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com
Please join my newest Yahoo group for discussion or legal self help litigation. Here is the link to the link: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/6346.html
Do you have questions? Join our Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
Instant message me: I am lawyerdude1989 on Yahoo instant messenger.
My phone number and email address may change from time to time. If the telephone number or email address on this page is outdated then please join my group http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude or migrate to more recent pages. There is a 4 digit number up in the top left corner of the page. Not the counter number. There is often a date at the bottom of the page. Migrate to newer pages to see my newer telephone number and email address.
My most useful web pages and my most popular web pages are these following pages:
Links for your Empowerment! Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.
1. Over 100 actual winning motions from 22 winning pro se litigators ! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html
2. Motions 101. How to write and file and serve a motion: http://www.fu.gq.nu/6025.html
3. Briefs 101. How to write a Memorandum of Law: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6435memo.html
4. Charlie’s Transcripts. Learn how to charm the judge and win your case: http://ronfox.250free.com/charlie.html
5. Fifteen actual Section 1983 federal complaints: Link is down. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
6. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
7. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
8. Lawyerdude’s Empowerment page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
9. Your litigation rights page. Learn your litigation rights! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
10. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?
11. List of the most quotable cases and the most useful web pages for the pro se Litigator: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
12. Your case summary and trial notebook form: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html
13. New! Links to the 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
14. My Demurrer page: perfect record so far: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
All about Lawyerdude
15. My ongoing battle with the mistaken, oppressive, and political state bar: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com
16. Lawyerdudes’s biographical page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/mystory.html
17. My LSD story and brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5431.html
18. How to work well with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html
19. My most important page. My top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
20. My ideas. My 10 proposed amendments to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5123.html
21. My home page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
22. List of my 200 most popular web pages according to Google. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html
My biggest fattest briefs:
23. My “state bar acts are unconstitutional!” brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html
24. My 100 page LSD brief: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1170.html Use this for your drug case!
25. My collection of “right to drive” briefs: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
26. Lawyerdude's briefs: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
More Lawyerdude links and Recommended Reading list
27. Lawyerdude’s traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
28. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html
29. List of links to the Latest uploads from Lawyerdude: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
30. Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
31. Lawyerdude's links page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
32. Lawyer’s Manifesto: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5753.html
People who link to me:
33. I thank Bill Munro http://www.landrights.com I thank http://www.commonlawvenue.com/ I remember Dan Meador http://www.lawresearch-registry.org/ , http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/4027/ ; http://www.wakeupaustralia.net ; http://home.houston.rr.com/jtyner/links