Farrar v. Hobby
506 U.S. 103 (1992)
Holding
A plaintiff who wins only nominal damages is a prevailing party under Section 1988, but the reasonable attorney-fee award in that situation may be little or nothing.
What Happened
The plaintiffs sought millions in damages in a civil-rights case but won only $1 at trial.
They then sought attorney fees under Section 1988, and the fee fight reached the Supreme Court.
A lower court had awarded about $280,000 in attorney’s fees.
What the Court Decided
The Supreme Court said a plaintiff who wins nominal damages is still a prevailing party.
But the Court also said that when the plaintiff wins only nominal damages because they failed to prove actual compensable injury, the reasonable attorney-fee award may be very small or even zero.
In Farrar itself, that meant wiping out the roughly $280,000 fee award.
That is the part of the decision that matters most to the economics of civil-rights litigation.
What It Means in Practice
Farrar is one of the cases that makes low-dollar civil-rights wins economically dangerous.
It means a lawyer can:
- spend years on the case
- prove liability
- win only $1
- and still recover little or no meaningful fee award
That risk affects which cases lawyers can rationally take and whether victims can find counsel at all.
It also sits in tension with City of Riverside v. Rivera, where the Supreme Court said civil-rights fees do not have to be proportional to the damages recovered.
How You Can Use It
- Use it to understand the economics. If a lawyer says the damages are too low, Farrar is part of what they are thinking about.
- Use it when evaluating settlement pressure. Defendants know that minimizing damages can also shrink or wipe out the fee threat.
How It Can Be Used Against You
- The defense may try to turn your case into a nominal-damages case. If they can reduce the damages picture enough, they reduce the economic pressure too.
- It weakens the practical remedy for lower-dollar cases. Even real constitutional violations may become hard to litigate if the likely recovery is too small.
Bottom Line
Farrar v. Hobby is one of the cases that made Section 1983 harder to win in practical terms by making some low-dollar wins economically hollow.