context: The focus of this analysis is on the relief actually obtained rather than on the success of the legal theories. Thus, as one would deduce from this approach, a plaintiff is a prevailing party to the extent extrajudicial relief makes legal claims moot.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: plaintiffs were prevailing parties because changes in the law had mooted their claims
citation_a.sentence: See Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312, 1322 (3d Cir.1979) (plaintiffs were prevailing parties because changes in the law had mooted their claims), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 3048, 65 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1980); see also Doe v. Busbee, 684 F.2d 1375, 1379 (11th Cir.1982) (“[A] party may be considered to be ‘prevailing’ if the litigation successfully terminates by a consent de cree, an out-of-court-settlement, a voluntary cessation of the unlawful practice by the defendant, or other mooting of the case when the plaintiff has vindicated his right.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 684 F.2d 1375, 1379
citation_b.parenthetical: "[A] party may be considered to be 'prevailing' if the litigation successfully terminates by a consent de cree, an out-of-court-settlement, a voluntary cessation of the unlawful practice by the defendant, or other mooting of the case when the plaintiff has vindicated his right."
citation_b.sentence: See Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312, 1322 (3d Cir.1979) (plaintiffs were prevailing parties because changes in the law had mooted their claims), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 3048, 65 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1980); see also Doe v. Busbee, 684 F.2d 1375, 1379 (11th Cir.1982) (“[A] party may be considered to be ‘prevailing’ if the litigation successfully terminates by a consent de cree, an out-of-court-settlement, a voluntary cessation of the unlawful practice by the defendant, or other mooting of the case when the plaintiff has vindicated his right.”).