Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

City of Riverside v. Rivera

United States Supreme Court
477 U.S. 561 (1986)


Facts

Eight Chicano individuals (plaintiffs) sued the City of Riverside and 30 officers after officers used “unnecessary physical force” to break up a party the respondents attended. The jury returned 37 individual verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $33,350 in damages. The plaintiffs sought $245,456.25 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the district court awarded this amount. The City of Riverside and the officers (defendants) appealed the award of attorney’s fees. The court of appeals upheld the award. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the court of appeals’ decision to uphold the award, and remanded the case to the district court where the record was carefully reexamined. The district court again awarded the same amount in attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed. The court of appeals again upheld the district court’s award, rejecting the argument that the amount of attorney’s fees was excessive because it exceeded the amount of damages recovered. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine reasonableness of the award.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Powell, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Burger, C.J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Rehquist, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.