Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Mexico and guns | Main | SAF, Calguns amicus in California permit case »

Win on attorneys' fees in Chicago case

Posted by David Hardy · 2 June 2011 03:26 PM

7th Circuit ruling here. After losing in the Supreme Court, and before the case came back down to the trial court so it could enter judgment, the defendant cities changed their handgun bans, and the trial court dismissed the case as moot. It then ruled in the NRA case that there were no "prevailing parties" to recover fees, since the only final judgment was a dismissal.

The Seventh Circuit reverses this. As the court asks, "By the time defendants bowed to the inevitable, plaintiffs had in hand a judgment of the Supreme Court that gave them everything they needed. If a favorable decision of the Supreme Court does not count as “the necessary judicial imprimatur” on the plaintiffs’ position (Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605), what would?"

· Chicago gun case

4 Comments | Leave a comment

jdberger | June 2, 2011 4:22 PM | Reply

Hopefully municipalities and other local governments will realize that following the advice of the Legal Community Against Violence, Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is an expensive proposition.

They can spend their limited funds on librarians or lawyers.

kalashnikat | June 2, 2011 4:54 PM | Reply

The lower court judge who tried to deny recovery of attorney fees should have been censured or fined for egregious, arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law to suit his own personal agenda...merely reversing him is not enough of a slap in the face for that kind of conduct.

Mark-1 | June 3, 2011 9:59 AM | Reply

Should be a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule for Judges being over-ruled.

David McCleary | June 3, 2011 3:49 PM | Reply

great news!

Leave a comment