1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 964 F.2d
  5. 964 F.2d 244 (1992)
 

METRO. PITTSBURGH CRUSADE FOR VOTERS v. PITTSBURGH

No. 91-3550.

964 F.2d 244 (1992)

METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH CRUSADE FOR VOTERS, Thomas E. Smith, Florence Bridges, Roy A. Holmes, Reginald D. Plato, Isaac J. Saxon, Claude J. Jones, Isaac Wade, Ronald L. Suber and Marshall Ross v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a Municipal Corporation, Richard Caliguiri, Mayor, Eugene DePasquale, Ben Woods, Mark Pollock, Sophie Masloff, Michelle Madoff, Richard Givens, Stephen Grabowski, Jack Wagner, James O'Malley, Members of the Pittsburgh City Council, Allegheny County Board of Elections, Tom Foerster, Pete Flaherty, Barbara Hafer, Commissioners, Allegheny County Democratic Committee, Edward Stephens, Chairman, Republican City Committee, Robert Binnie, Chairman, Allegheny County Department of Elections, James Scanlon, Director. Metropolitan Pittsburgh Crusade for Voters, Thomas E. Smith, Roy A. Holmes, Reginald D. Plato, Isaac J. Saxon, Claude J. Jones, Isaac Wade, Ronald L. Suber and Marshall Ross, Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided May 14, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Vincent R. Fontana (argued), Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, New York City, Robert B. Smith, City of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Law, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees City of Pittsburgh, Pa., a mun. corp., Richard S. Caliguiri, Mayor, Eugene DePasquale, Ben Woods, Mark Pollock, Sophie Masloff, Michelle Madoff, Richard Givens, Stephen Grabowski, Jack Wagner and James O'Malley, Members of Pittsburgh City Council.

Thomas J. Henderson (argued), Frank R. Parker, James J. Halpert, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Washington, D.C., for all appellants.

Samuel Issacharoff, Austin, Tex., for appellant Metropolitan Pittsburgh Crusade for Voters.

Before GREENBERG and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges and DEBEVOISE, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

This is a dispute over the denial of certain portions of plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees in a voting rights class action. After legislation and a referendum achieved much of the relief sought in the class action, the parties entered into a consent decree. Subsequently, plaintiffs sought attorneys' fees as "prevailing parties" under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973l(e) and 1988. Plaintiffs now appeal...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases