In the case of G.S. v. Lee, 6th Cir. No. 22-5969 (Aug. 14, 2023), a federal appellate court held that the disabled students were entitled to attorney’s fees when the disabled students were awarded a preliminary injunction, but not a permanent injunction, to stop the governor from enforcing an executive order than allowed grade-school students and parents to opt out of the county’s mask mandate during the COVID-19 state of emergency.
In this case, the disabled students argued that the disabled students were a prevailing party as they disable students were granted a preliminary injunction as requested. In response, the governor argued the disabled students were not a prevailing party as no permanent injunction was issued. The appellate court agreed with the disabled students.
In support of its decision in favor of the disabled students, the federal appellate court explained that a prevailing party does not need to win on all claims; a single awarded request is enough to be a prevailing party. The federal appellate court further explained that the disabled students had requested a preliminary injunction, which was granted, and therefore the disabled students had prevailed.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.