the Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

the Supreme Court of the United States Lefemine v. Wideman — Per Curiam…

Because Lefemine is a "prevailing party," he "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 429 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted) . Neither of the courts below addressed whether any special circumstances exist in this case, and we do not do so; whether there may be other grounds on which the police officers could contest liability for fees is not a question before us.
Source: Wikisource

the Supreme Court of the United States Lefemine v. Wideman — Per Curiam…

Because the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff, we vacate the Fourth Circuit's decision and remand for further proceedings.
* * Petitioner Steven Lefemine and members of Columbia Christians for Life (CCL) engage in demonstrations in which they carry pictures of aborted fetuses to protest the availability of abortions. On November 3, 2005, Lefemine and about 20 other CCL members conducted such a demonstration at a busy intersection in Greenwood County, South Carolina.
Source: Wikisource

the Supreme Court of the United States Lefemine v. Wideman — Per Curiam…

Lefemine sought nominal damages, a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, and attorney's fees. See 732 F. Supp. 2d, at 620. Ruling on the parties' dueling motions for summary judgment, the District Court determined that the defendants had infringed Lefemine's rights. See id., at 620–625. The court therefore permanently enjoined the defendants "from engaging in content-based restrictions on [Lefemine's] display of graphic signs" under similar circumstances.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature