Court Opinion

ID: 9500622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:21:46.149861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:01.000774
License: Public Domain

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the district court’s assessment of the three factors set forth in Far*1243rar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 116-22, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992). The district court concluded (1) the damage award of $1791 was symbolic and therefore nominal, reflecting the date of the ratification of the First Amendment, (2) the plaintiff prevailed on a significant legal issue, and (3) the litigation was mainly a vehicle for personal vindication and not the public good. I thus disagree with the majority that the third factor favors Zinna.
But I agree with the majority the district court did not adequately explain the basis for the amount of attorneys’ fee it awarded. I therefore agree a remand is warranted.