Laserfiche WebLink
manner. As such, it is properly viewed as a private attorney <br />general type of claim. Unlike a typical common law negligence <br />case, Mr. Welsh's cause of action "raises an issue vital to the <br />regulatory authority of cities throughout Minnesota which have <br />lakes and streams within their boundaries." City's Pre -hearing <br />Conference Statement to `his Court at 8. <br />In contrast to the decision herein, the cases on which this <br />Court has relied in denying Respondent his attorney's fees <br />establish no such far-reaching legal principles. Martin was, in <br />fact, a "dog bite case" in which the plaintiff obtained a $2,550 <br />award because a police officer was found to be negligent in his <br />control of a police dog. Boland was an action for monetary <br />damages only, occasioned by the defendant's condemnation a,ld <br />destruction of a building owned by the plaintiff. Neither case <br />had an extensive impact on governmental regulatory action, and <br />each advanced a public interest only in the indirect manner of <br />most common law negligence cases. Naprstek and Green, the other <br />two cases cited by this Court, were frivolous, unreasonably <br />contentious and thoroughly unnecessary actions which established <br />no significant principles and landuly burdened the federal courts. <br />Naprstek, 433 F. Supp. at 1371; Green, 460 F. Supp at 1194. In <br />fact, Green stands for the proposition that Congress did not <br />intend that attorney's fees be awarded under S1988 in actions <br />"which need never have been filed." See Young v. Kenley, 465 <br />F. Supp. 1260, 1264 (E.D. Va. 1979). <br />The record in the instant case amply reflects the <br />substantiality of this lawsuit and Mr. Welsh's efforts to resolve <br />-11- <br />