[ and more... ( legal / law websites ) ]
______________________________
After SCOTUS Reversal, Activist Wins Legal Fees
http://www.courthousenews.com/
By DAN MCCUE
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
(CN) - A Christian abortion protester who won his free-speech case against a county sheriff in South Carolina deserves attorneys' fees,
the 4th Circuit ruled.
Steven Lefemine was one of several members of the Columbia Christians for Life who demonstrated on a public sidewalk at the
busiest intersection in Greenwood County, S.C., in November 2005. During the demonstration, members of the group held up
large signs with graphic images of aborted fetuses.
After passersby who saw the signs complained to the Greenwood County Sheriff's Office, officers instructed the group to
take their signs down.
Lefemine filed a suit in October 2008, and U.S. District Judge Henry Herlong Jr. ultimately held that the officers had violated
Lefemine's First Amendment rights.
The court's injunction blocked the defendants "from engaging in content-based restrictions on [Lefemine's] display of graphic signs
without narrowly tailoring [the] restriction to serve a compelling state interest."
continued... http://www.courthousenews.com/
______________________________
______________________________
http://
Lefemine v. Wideman
http://
Jul 12, 2014 by Justia Inc
Plaintiff successfully sued various Greenwood County Sheriff's Office officials for First Amendment violations.
The court held that qualified immunity, the absence of a policy or custom of discrimination, and the nature
of the relief granted here - whether considered individually or together through a "totality of the circumstances" lens
- could not support the denial of attorneys' fees to plaintiff, a prevailing civil rights plaintiff; the district court abused
its discretion by denying these fees and the court reversed the judgment; and the court remanded with instructions
to allow plaintiff to make a fee application and for ensuing determination of the reasonable fee award for his successful
prosecution of the civil rights matter, including the time spent defending entitlement to attorney's fees.
View "Lefemine v. Wideman" on Justia Law
View Opinion
Copyright © Justia ::
______________________________
______________________________
http://supremecourtreview.com/
http://supremecourtreview.com/
OPINION
Lefemine v. Wideman
skip to coverage
go to case page
Were anti-abortion protesters properly denied attorney's fees in their suit against police officers who prohibited them
from displaying graphic pictures of aborted fetuses even though they were successful in obtaining a permanent injunction
against the officers?
REPORTER: Josh Kleiman
______________________________
______________________________
Court Listener
https://www.courtlistener.com/
Lefemine v. Davis, 732 F. Supp. 2d 614 (D.S.C. 2010)
Cited by 1 case
Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman, 13-1629 (4th Cir. 2014)
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | July 11, 2014 | Cited 0 times
Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman, 13-1629 (4th Cir. 2014)
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
https://www.courtlistener.com/
Date Filed: July 11th, 2014
Status: Precedential
Docket Number: 13-1629
______________________________
______________________________
http://nlf.net/
VICTORIES!
The National Legal Foundation wins unusual Supreme Court victory on behalf of Pro-life client:
Read our Press Release about this wonderful victory here. Read the Supreme Court’s opinion here. You can also read the Petition and Reply
that we filed in our Lefemine v. Wideman case.
After this incredible victory, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit, to examine whether a narrow exception to a general rule
would keep us from receiving attorney's fees. These fees are an INCREDIBLY important tool to hit rogue law enforcement agencies in the pocket book
and teach them that they cannot trample the rights of Christians and others. The Fourth Circuit simply sent the case back to the trial court,
and asked it to decide that issue. UNBELIEVABLY, the trial court ruled against us. So we had to appeal AGAIN to the Fourth Circuit. FINALLY,
the Fourth Circuit ruled in our favor! Read the court's opinion here.
No comments:
Post a Comment