Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc, No. 339

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MARSHALL
Citation390 U.S. 400,88 S.Ct. 964,19 L.Ed.2d 1263
PartiesAnne P. NEWMAN et al., Petitioners, v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al
Docket NumberNo. 339
Decision Date18 March 1968

19 L.Ed.2d 1263
88 S.Ct. 964
390 U.S. 400
Anne P. NEWMAN et al., Petitioners,

v.

PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.

No. 339.
Argued March 7, 1968.
Decided March 18, 1968.

Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners instituted this class action under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 204(a), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a—3(a), to enjoin racial discrimination at five drive-in restaurants and a sandwich shop owned and operated by the respondents in South Carolina. The District Court held that the operation of each of the respondents' restaurants affected commerce within the meaning of § 201(c)(2), 78 Stat. 243, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c)(2), and found, on undisputed evidence, that Negroes had been discriminated against at all six of the restaurants. 256 F.Supp. 941, 947, 951. But the District Court erroneously concluded that Title II does not cover drive-in restaurants of the sort involved in this case. 256 F.Supp., at 951 953. Thus the court en-

Page 401

joined racial discrimination only at the respondents' sandwich shop. Id., at 953.

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's refusal to enjoin discrimination at the drive-in establishments, 377 F.2d 433, 435—436, and then directed its attention to that section of Title II which provides that 'the prevailing party' is entitled to 'a reasonable attorney's fee' in the court's 'discretion.' § 204(b), 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. s 2000a—3(b).1 In remanding the case, the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to award counsel fees only to the extent that the respondents' defenses had been advanced 'for purposes of delay and not in good faith.' 377 F.2d, at 437. We granted certiorari to decide whether this subjective standard properly effectuates the purposes of the counsel-fee provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 389 U.S. 815, 88 S.Ct. 87, 19 L.Ed.2d 66. We hold that it does not.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law.2 A Title II suit is thus private in form only.

Page 402

When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.3 If...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1349 practice notes
  • Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc., No. C01-3015-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • July 28, 2003
    ...S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 4 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5908, 5912, in turn quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)); accord Schultz, 955 F.Supp. at Fees are usually calculated according to the "lodestar" method, wh......
  • Dreyer v. Jalet, Civ. A. No. 71-H-973
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • September 18, 1972
    ...an important constitutional issue and the rights being vindicated are that of a substantial class. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L. Ed.2d 1263 (1968); Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed. 2d 88 (1962); 3B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.......
  • Davis v. Perry, Civil Nos. SA–11–CA–788–OLG–JES–XR, SA–11–CA–855–OLG–JES–XR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • January 8, 2014
    ...entitled to an award of fees, unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). “Congress considered vigorous enforcement to vindicate civil rights a high priority and entrusted plain......
  • Ellis v. University of Kansas Medical Center, Nos. 96-3343
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1998
    ...award unjust." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)). The presumption in favor of attorneys' fees may be overcome in a variety of ways, including a waiver......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1346 cases
  • Knutson v. Ag Processing, Inc., No. C01-3015-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • July 28, 2003
    ...S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 4 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 5908, 5912, in turn quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)); accord Schultz, 955 F.Supp. at Fees are usually calculated according to the "lodestar" method, wh......
  • Dreyer v. Jalet, Civ. A. No. 71-H-973
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • September 18, 1972
    ...an important constitutional issue and the rights being vindicated are that of a substantial class. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L. Ed.2d 1263 (1968); Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed. 2d 88 (1962); 3B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.......
  • Davis v. Perry, Civil Nos. SA–11–CA–788–OLG–JES–XR, SA–11–CA–855–OLG–JES–XR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • January 8, 2014
    ...entitled to an award of fees, unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). “Congress considered vigorous enforcement to vindicate civil rights a high priority and entrusted plain......
  • Ellis v. University of Kansas Medical Center, Nos. 96-3343
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1998
    ...award unjust." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)). The presumption in favor of attorneys' fees may be overcome in a variety of ways, including a waiver......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Fee-Shifting in Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 Nbr. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...808 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. [section] 1132(g) (2)). (75) Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (76) Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 419-421 (1978) (court may only award attorney's fees to......
  • BIGOTRY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND LGBTQ CHILD WELFARE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 6, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...2020 WL 5020362 ("[A] ban on discrimination has been viewed by the Court as a prohibition on conduct, and not on speech."). (101.) 390 U.S. 400 (1968). A Westlaw search using the term "Piggie Park" revealed that the petitioners' brief, the brief for the intervenor-respondents, and eight of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT