Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007)
Primary Holding
A plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction but is ultimately denied a permanent injunction after a full adjudication on the merits does not qualify as a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) for the purposes of recovering attorney's fees.
In the case of Sole v. Wyner, the Supreme Court decided that if someone wins a temporary court order (called a preliminary injunction) but later loses the overall case, they cannot get their lawyer's fees paid for by the other side. This matters because it means that just getting a small win at the start of a legal battle doesn't guarantee you'll be compensated for your legal costs if you ultimately lose. For consumers, this ruling emphasizes the importance of the final outcome in a case when it comes to recovering attorney's fees. If you find yourself in a legal situation where you only achieve a temporary victory but then lose, you should be aware that you might not be able to get your lawyer's fees covered. This case is relevant if you are considering taking legal action and are concerned about the potential costs involved, especially if you think you might only achieve a temporary win.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In mid-January 2003, T. A. Wyner informed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of her plan to create an antiwar artwork on February 14, 2003, at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park. The artwork involved nude individuals forming a peace sign. On February 6, 2003, the DEP notified Wyner that her display would only be permissible if participants adhered to the "Bathing Suit Rule," which mandated specific attire for individuals in state parks. In response to this restriction and to protect her planned display from potential police interference, Wyner filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 12, 2003. She claimed violations of her First Amendment rights and sought both immediate and permanent injunctive relief against any interference with her expressive activities. The case progressed through the district court, where Wyner initially succeeded in obtaining a preliminary injunction that allowed her to proceed with the artwork. However, after a full hearing on the merits, the court ultimately denied her request for a permanent injunction. This led to a dispute over whether Wyner could be considered a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) for the purposes of recovering attorney's fees, given that she had won at the preliminary stage but lost on the merits. The procedural history culminated in Wyner's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled in her favor regarding the fee award based on her preliminary victory. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, where the central question was whether a plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction but is later denied a permanent injunction qualifies as a prevailing party under the fee-shifting provision of §1988(b). The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the petitioners, asserting that a final decision on the merits denying permanent relief determines the prevailing party status for fee awards.
Whether a plaintiff who gains a preliminary injunction after an abbreviated hearing, but is denied a permanent injunction after a dispositive adjudication on the merits, qualifies as a “prevailing party” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 17, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Ginsburg
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008)
Consumer WonThe Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows a prevailing party in a case against the government to recover attorney's fees, including paralegal services, at the prevailing market rate, rather than limiting recovery to the cost incurred by the attorney's firm.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
Consumer LostA federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief in patent infringement cases must apply the traditional four-factor test used in equity, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate irreparable injury, inadequacy of legal remedies, a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and that the public interest would not be disserved by the injunction.
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008)
Consumer LostA court must consider the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims, even if the government waives the issue, due to the special statute of limitations that governs claims in that court.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, 547 U.S. 516 (2006)
Mixed OutcomeThe Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, indicating that the case was not suitable for review at that time, and remanded it for further consideration in light of a related decision.