99-1848 Buckhannon Board and Care Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, et al.

Listen to this article

“Even under a limited form of the ‘catalyst theory,’ a plaintiff could recover attorney’s fees if it established that the ‘complaint had sufficient merit to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.’… This is not the type of legal merit that our prior decisions, based upon plain language and congressional intent, have found necessary. Indeed, we held in Hewitt that an interlocutory ruling that reverses a dismissal for failure to state a claim ‘is not the stuff of which legal victories are made.’ 482 U.S., at 760. See also Hanrahan, supra, at 754 (reversal of a directed verdict for defendant does not make plaintiff a ‘prevailing party’). A defendant’s voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change. Our precedents thus counsel against holding that the term ‘prevailing party’ authorizes an award of attorney’s fees without a corresponding alteration in the legal relationship of the parties.”

Affirmed.

Local Effect:

The decision overrules Seventh Circuit law accepting the “catalyst theory,” Zinn v. Shalala, 35 F.3d 273, 276 (7th Cir.1994).

99-1848 Buckhannon Board and Care Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, et al.

Rehnquist, C.J.; Scalia, J., concurring; Ginsburg, J., dissenting

On Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 203 F.3d 819.