10-15-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to show that his action resulted in direct benefit to others, rather than in benefits solely to himself.* [Citation omitted.] Peres v. University of Puerto Rico, 600 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1979) (emphasis added). Moreover, the united States District Court of Rhode Island has specifically held that a business entity which successfully claims governmental violation of its property rights is entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees - if its suit does not produce a direct benefit to the public 'ge. United Nuclear Corp. v. Cannon, 564 F. Su, 581, 584 I. 1983). See also, Dickerson v. Young, 332 N.W.2d 93 (Iowa 1983) (trial court properly allowed $50,000 as attorney fee award under S1988 in action alleging tr,-oass, conversion and deprivation of civil rights arising out of destruction of plaintiffs' robile home). Thus, contrary to this Court's apparent understanding, under controlling case law Mr. welsh is entitled to his reasonable attorney's fees under Sec1908 even if the property interest he vindicated is construed to be purely p •3te 'n nature. B. The Cases Cited by this Court Do Not Support the Denial of Reasonable Attorney's Fees to Mr. Wel3h. Is sx)ite of this consensus view, this Court has ruled to the contrary in % present ease, citing Martin v. Hancock, 466 1-. Supp. 4 ! (u. Minn. 1979), and the other cases cited at prae 3 of this Petition for the propos)-ion that the private nature of Mr- Welsh's act!ni, justifies a denial of attor- .'a fees. Recent opi.,:uns have thoroughly eroded the value of Martin as precedent. In Martin, Judge Devitt of the United States District -5-