WPCx4 2BVUZ#|ye)d2~CC,qX~xP7XP"m+O6^CCd~~ȘCCC~CCCC~~~~~~~~~~CChȔ~so8okw~ȐzCCCddCkskskJss00k0ssssFdJsooo`YdY~~~~~~C~~~~~~d~z0kkkkkĪksksksksk80808080sssssssssoksssoswskkkkkkksskskskskssssssss80808080`okk0k0k0kIk0sssssȵFFFdddd~J~J~JssssssȮoz`z`z`sk0sFd~JoosssCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd~~Choo~~~QQ~NNdd~NCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddN"Ȑdjd dCCȐwȐxCd~o~ȐȔdC~d~sȐkȐȐȧzȐUwŐdȐYYCCCCєo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UsswkwwY~]k`o]s00skkkoCC~~~~~~~ooooooooooooooooooo]]]]]]]ssssssssssssssssssss000000000000ssssssskkkkkkkkkkkkCss88kdYCxHP LaserJet IIIDHPLASIII.PRSX~xP7,\,UZXP2  c5 #|y"m^8;Noo)CCdy8C88oooooooooo88yyyYQo~čzCyCyd)ooYsdCkz?;w?zdsoY]Nzkkk`CyCyC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCs?oooooȟYddddQ?Q?Q?Q?zddddzzzzkosddkdsoooYYYYsddddkkkkkkzzQ?Q?Q?Q?ow?????zzzzddȧYYY~]~]~]~]NNNzzzzzzĜkz`z`z`s?zY~]NkksdzNy8yd;YUUoooCgwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@2c9cccb"m^ '/AAac'':G ' GAAAAAAAAAA GGG4WRTT[TN[a/GVNn_[N[VNP_RlRPN'G'G:CA4G4'?G'%A'hG:CA44)G=[::6'G'G' ''u''''''''''A'RCRCRCRCRCfTT4T4T4T4T4/'/'/'/'_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GP:RC[G[:[:P:[:NCRCRCRCT4T4T4T4[GT4T4T4T4[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/'/'/'/'GVAN'N'N'N'N'_G_G_G_G[:[:r[V4V4V4N4N4N4N4P)P)P)_G_G_G_G_G_Gl[P:N6N6N6[GN'_GV4N4P)P:P:[G[:_GNG L:'422AAA1+aaA'WWAa' --:u''::oGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"m^AE[¾0NNuANAAAAh_ܾ夤NNu0huN}JEJϏuhl[}}}pNNNANN'NNNNNNNNNNJ麨huuuu_J_J_J_Juuuu}uu}uhhhhuuuu}}}}}}_J_J_J_JJJJJJuu¨hhhllll[[[嶤}pppJhl[}}uNAuEhccNFÂNN0[[<<uu0[NэA'MM捍]@s:`捍fsѨ`sfszNMϏzsffzfMMfffffffMMMMMMMMMMMMNN"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXgwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkklWdPZH\I\I\IlWoY2(mWgRklWaMlWs\SCYG\IhSr\lWw_s\_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR&-yC8 h0y P['CXP&u![2*d[ P['CP &[G' ԦGG P['C^P[G' GGe xzC^X&4NA> P['CPu![2*[e xzCX&)o=3no P['C&P &r!Y1)LY P['CP )o=3no P['C&P!)o=3Roe xzC&X&]I(!̤PI P['ChP u![2*d[ P['CP tzeoKp[pPp[o`=<e~e uB ԟ , , X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:P# ?d  dd^_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES #[ P['CdP# ^_dd  2  &Syllabus  J #GG P['CԦ^P#    #[ P['CdP#Y%` uB $#FARRAR v. HOBBY &SyllabusY#o P['Cn&P#  ddd} FARRAR et al., COADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATE  J { OF FARRAR, DECEASED v. HOBBY 1   d}dd certiorari to the united states court of appeals for "the fifth circuit  #[ P['CdP#u  dddx No. 91!990. Argued October 7, 1992"Decided December 14, 1992 * *Ԋ,   u , , Petitioners, coadministrators of decedent Farrar's estate, sought $17 million in compensatory damages, pursuant to 42 U. tS S. PS C.    1983 and 1985, from respondent Hobby and other Texas public officials for the alleged illegal closure of the school that Farrar and his son operated. However, the Federal District Court awarded them only  uB nominal damages and, subsequently, awarded them $280,000 in attorney's fees under 42 U. VS S. 2S C.   1988. The Court of Appeals reversed the fee award on the ground that petitioners were not prevailing parties eligible for fees under  { 1988.Ƭ  uB  *  , , Held:Ƭ X X 1.  S A plaintiff who wins nominal damages is a prevailing party under    1988. A plaintiff ``prevails'' when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly  uBu benefits the plaintiff. Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U. S S. 755; Rhodes v.  uB, Stewart, 488 U.  S S. 1; Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Indepen uB dent School Dist., 489 U. S S. 782. Here, petitioners were entitled to  uB nominal damages under Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. YS S. 247, 266, because they were able to establish Hobby's liability for denial of procedural due process, but could not prove the actual injury necessary for a  uB compensatory damages award. Judgment for nominal damages entitled petitioners to demand payment and modified Hobby's behavior for petitioners' benefit by forcing him to pay an amount of money he otherwise would not have paid. The prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained, and whether a nominal damages award is a ``technical,'' ``insignificant'' victory doesR"1!"((  uB not affect the plaintiff's prevailing party status. Cf. Garland, supra, at 792. Pp.  S 5!10.Ƭ X X 2.  S Petitioners are not entitled to a fee award. While the ``technical'' nature of a nominal damages award does not affect the prevailing party inquiry, it does bear on the propriety of fees awarded under    1988. The most critical factor in determining a fee award's reasonableness is the degree of success obtained, since a fee based on the hours expended on the litigation as a whole may be excessive if a  uB plaintiff achieves only partial or limited success. Hensley v. Ecker uBo hart, 461 U. +S S. 424, 436. When a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, the only reasonable fee is usually no fee at all. In light of ``the relationship between'' the extent of petitioners'  uBK success on the merits and the award's amount, id., at 438, the reasonable fee was not the District Court's $280,000 award but no fee at all. Pp.  S 10!12.Ƭ  p *  , , 941 F.  S 2d 1311, affirmed.Ƭ  uB  Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,  uB C.J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J.,  uBv filed a concurring opinion. White, J., filed an opinion concurring in  uB- part and dissenting in part, in which Blackmun, Stevens, and  uB ԚSouter, JJ., joined.