context: Other courts have forced plaintiffs to pay attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.A. SS 1988 precisely because they brought un reasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious claims that they should have known were barred by the Tax Injunction Act.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: affirming award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.A. SS 1988 even though the underlying action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act, noting that Werch was a "similar case"
citation_a.sentence: See Werch v. City of Berlin, 673 F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir.1982) (“Clearly, Werch should have known that his claim for injunctive relief would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [due to the Tax Injunction Act], Under these circumstances, Werch’s claim for injunctive relief was meritless.”); cf. Hutcherson v. Board of Supervisors, 742 F.2d 142, 146 & n. 4 (4th Cir.1984) (affirming award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 even though the underlying action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act, noting that Werch was a “similar case”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 673 F.2d 192, 195
citation_b.parenthetical: "Clearly, Werch should have known that his claim for injunctive relief would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [due to the Tax Injunction Act], Under these circumstances, Werch's claim for injunctive relief was meritless."
citation_b.sentence: See Werch v. City of Berlin, 673 F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir.1982) (“Clearly, Werch should have known that his claim for injunctive relief would be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [due to the Tax Injunction Act], Under these circumstances, Werch’s claim for injunctive relief was meritless.”); cf. Hutcherson v. Board of Supervisors, 742 F.2d 142, 146 & n. 4 (4th Cir.1984) (affirming award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 even though the underlying action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act, noting that Werch was a “similar case”).