Garth Maag v. Richard Wessler Valley County, Montana

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 6476·993 F.2d 718·1993 WL 170197·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 11945·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3783
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 24, 199392-36657California1,380 words

Opinion

Opinion

Leavy, J.

In our previous amended opinion, Maag v. Wessler, 960 F.2d 773 (9th Cir.1992), we remanded to the district court for consideration of the appellants’ request for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . Upon remand, the district court issued an order that required the defendants to submit a motion and a brief in support of their request for attorney’s fees. On July 16, 1992, the district court entered an order denying the motion for attorneys’ fees. The order stated simply “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion, requesting the Court for an award of a reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , be, and the same hereby, is denied.” The final judgment was entered on July 24, 1992, against the plaintiff, Garth Maag, and for the defendants. In accordance with the order of July 16, 1992, no attorney’s fees were awarded to the defendants. Two of the defendants, Deputy Richard Wessler and his employer, Valley County, Montana, timely appeal from the final judgment. Deputy Wessler and Valley County argue that the district court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to articulate any reason for its denial of fees, and (2) denying their request for attorney fees under the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.