This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |date=March 11, 1991 |subject=Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 |case_treatment=No |facts=Wes...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=March 11, 1991 | |date=March 11, 1991 | ||
|subject=Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 | |subject=Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 | ||
|facts=West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) as the plaintiff sued Robert Casey (defendant) who was the governor of Pennsylvania. | |facts=West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) as the plaintiff sued Robert Casey (defendant) who was the governor of Pennsylvania. | ||
|procedural_history=42 U.S.C. § 1988 only explicitly allowed attorneys' fee but not non-attorney expert fees. | |procedural_history=42 U.S.C. § 1988 only explicitly allowed attorneys' fee but not non-attorney expert fees. |
Latest revision as of 03:44, July 14, 2023
W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey | |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | March 11, 1991 |
Facts
West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) as the plaintiff sued Robert Casey (defendant) who was the governor of Pennsylvania.
Procedural History
42 U.S.C. § 1988 only explicitly allowed attorneys' fee but not non-attorney expert fees.
Issues
Who pays attorneys' fees? Who pays the experts who gave testimony at a hefty fee for the winning party?
Arguments
The plaintiff argued that the hospital as the winner of the suit should recover reasonable litigation costs against the government of Pennsylvania in a civil rights lawsuit.
The hospital contended the the state's Medicaid reimbursement rates were too low.Holding
Using statutory interpretation, Justice John Paul Stevens inferred based on the legislative history that the omission of expert fees in the statute was an oversight.
Judgment
Scalia and the majority asserted that expert fees wasn't written in the statute at the time.
Reasons
Scalia rejected the purpose of the law articulated in the reports of the House and Senate.
Rule
Statutory interpretation
Comments
This is not the "Casey" decision about abortion.