Case Citator › Farrar v. Hobby

Farrar v. Hobby

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
506 U.S. 103
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
187 of 187
Citing cases (total)
3,053
Treatment dates
1995–1998
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Farrar v. Hobby has been fully reviewed: all 187 flagged citations have been read, with two historical limitations listed below. Marbley v. Bane and Jan R. Smith Construction Co. v. DeKalb County confined Farrar's judgment language while allowing fees under § 1988 for a lawsuit that caused a defendant to change course without a judgment or settlement.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court later rejected that catalyst theory in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (2001); these older rulings do not establish a current right to such fees. The other citing opinions applied Farrar, distinguished claims under different fee statutes, or rejected parties' arguments.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3,053 later cases cite Farrar v. Hobby; 187 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Farrar v. Hobby?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Second Circuit held that Farrar's judgment language did not foreclose a § 1988 fee claim based on a lawsuit's catalytic effect.

    Marbley v. Bane · Second Circuit · filed

    We now expressly state what was implicit in our opinion in Rodonich: Farrar does not eviscerate the long-standing doctrine that a plaintiff who has obtained at least some part of what he sought in bringing the suit may be considered a prevailing party and may therefore seek an award of attorney’s fees.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The district court held that Farrar did not displace the § 1988 catalyst theory and awarded fees after the lawsuit prompted a policy suspension.

    Jan R. Smith Construction Co. v. DeKalb County · N.D. Ga. · filed

    This Court agrees with the majority of the courts that have considered that effect of Farrar on the catalyst theory: “it is not likely that the Supreme Court would overturn such a wide-spread theory without even once mentioning it, particularly when it was inapplicable to the case at hand.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Farrar v. Hobby and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace