Warning

Info

Table of Contents
LegalWriter, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey

(1991)

Supreme Court of the United States - 499 U.S. 83

tl;dr:

Expert fees do not count as attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, so pursuant to that statute, a losing party does not have to pay the fees incurred by the winner in hiring experts.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the 1991 case W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey, the US Supreme Court decided on an issue involving expert fees in a civil rights lawsuit. The hospital (plaintiff) sued Pennsylvania officials (defendants), alleging violations of federal law in setting Medicaid reimbursement rates. The plaintiff won the trial and was awarded attorney's fees, including fees for experts, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

The defendants appealed, arguing expert fees weren't part of the attorney's fee authorized by § 1988. The Court of Appeals reversed the expert fees award, except for the $30-per-day witness fees per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Court held expert fees couldn't be included in the attorney's fee under § 1988, based on statutory interpretation.

This case is important because it highlights fee-shifting principles and limitations in civil rights lawsuits. Fee-shifting allows the court to require the losing party to pay the winning party's legal expenses, such as attorney's fees or expert fees, to encourage private enforcement of civil rights laws, deter frivolous litigation, and promote access to justice for plaintiffs. However, fee-shifting is subject to statutory authorization and interpretation, which might impose restrictions on recoverable fees or costs. The case also shows how courts may rely on statutory text, rather than legislative history, to resolve ambiguities or conflicts in fee-shifting statutes.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingW. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey case brief facts & holding

Facts:The governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, changed the Medicaid reimbursement...

Holding:Holding (Scalia): 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides for an award...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice Scalia
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Supreme Court ruled that expert witness fees can be recovered under fee-shifting provisions that explicitly include them, but not under provisions that only refer to attorney's fees. The court established that attorney's fees and expert fees are separate expenses, and prior to 1976, federal courts did not include expert fees as part of attorney's fees. The court rejected the argument that expert fees should be included in fee-shifting provisions that only refer to attorney's fees, as expert fees are not traditionally considered attorney's fees. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Dissenting opinion, author: Justice Marshall,Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case discussed the interpretation of a fee-shifting provision and whether expert witness fees could be awarded without express authorization. The court held that expert witness fees are valid in fee-shifting statutes, but law clerk and paralegal fees cannot be separately awarded. The purpose of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 was to level the playing field so that private citizens could still afford to bring actions to enforce civil rights laws, including expert witness fees. The court has held that expert witness fees are a substitute for lawyer time and excluding them from reimbursement is arbitrary and contrary to the broad remedial purpose of the fee-shifting provision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey

Chat for W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey
brief-269
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.