Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
Supreme Court case on attorney's fees under Title II.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held per curiam that attorney's fees under Section 204(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are generally recoverable after a successful effort to obtain an injunction under Title II. The decision established that such fees are not limited to cases where a defense was advanced for purposes of delay.
Quick Facts
- Case citation
- 390 U.S. 400 (1968)
- Court
- United States Supreme Court
- Decision date
- 1968
- Vote
- 8-0
- Non-participating justice
- Marshall
- Lower court
- United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
- Presiding judge at trial
- Charles Earl Simons, Jr.
Facts from the source article.
Did You Know?
- Piggie Park Enterprises was a drive-in BBQ chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger, the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People.
- The lawsuit was filed by lawyer Matthew J. Perry after Bessinger refused to allow Anne Newman, an African-American minister's wife, into his restaurant.
- The language of the decision has been said to form a cornerstone for the text of the 1967 Attorney's Fees Act.
Procedural history
Perry's lawsuit was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Charles Earl Simons, Jr. presiding. The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans violated Title II. The defendant, Bessinger, denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations under the Act, and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion. Simons held the Act did not apply to drive-in restaurants but applied to Bessinger's sandwich shop. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding discrimination prohibited at both drive-in and eat-in establishments, and remanded with instructions to award counsel fees only to the extent defenses were advanced for purposes of delay. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of the good-faith defense exclusion.
More in Barbecue Restaurants in the United States
Spotted an error? Know more?
Reader corrections go straight into our review queue. Suggest an edit · How this site is sourced
