ÿWPC“ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dl 0J° 0Tú N 0^V 0h´ 0r 0|Ž 0† 0 1u 0d• w@ù U>9U*wB)¡DCÊ B  AM*U*w D3¡Ô›ã 0@~•¾JSv~vÓ AOîÆ= 0D D/G Bv˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡DÒ 3|x’((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ €{‚{ƒ„«…D†D‡EˆÓ€’< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial'''''ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌOctober€7,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Court€of€Appeals'€opinion€refers€to€the€issue€as€"whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÏà àfailing€to€dismiss€plaintiff's€action€based€upon€42€U.S.C.€Section€1983,€joined€to€theÏà àpetition€for€review€under€the€Administrative€Procedures€Act."Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ‹Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€has€been€recognized,€Section€1983€is€not€the€source€of€any€federal€right.€€It€simplyÏà àsecures€federal€rights€by€providing€a€remedy€for€their€violation.€€òòChapman€v.€HoustonÏà àWelfare€Rights€Org.óó,€441€U.S.€600,€617„18€(1979).Ì @Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€this€regard€the€òòMaldonadoóó€€case€is€consistent€with€our€decision€in€òòBloomingdale's€byÏà àMail€Ltd.,€v.€Huddlestonóó,€848€S.W.2d€52€(Tenn.€1992),€in€which€we€held€that€a€party€isÏà àentitled€to€recover€an€award€for€attorney€fees€under€Section€1988€in€a€case€in€which€theÏà àparty€is€successful€in€enforcing€federal€rights€even€if€the€party€did€not€specifically€plead€42Ïà àU.S.C.€ðð1983.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€BXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€#¼ÔØ ØÓ&€$$X°d&Óœ›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌSHERRY€WIMLEY,à àà àà à€)€€€€ò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àóó€)òòÌà àóóPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à€)€€€€œòòò òFiled:€October€7,€1996ó óóó›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€)€€€€Davidson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€)ÌLINDA€RUDOLPH,€Commissioner€à à€)€€€€Hon.€C.€Allen€High,€ChancellorÌof€the€Tennessee€Departmentà àà à€)Ìof€Human€Services,à àà àà à€)€€€€No.€01S01„9507„CH„00108ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€(+&;+'h|«` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à€)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à€)à àÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ìà àÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àDavid€KozlowskiÌAttorney€General€and€Reporterà àà àà àLegal€Services€of€SouthÏà àœà à›à àà àà àà àà àà àCentral€Tennessee,€Inc.ÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àà àTullahoma,€TNÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌDianne€Stamey€DycusÌSenior€CounselÌCIVIL€DIVISIONÌNashville,€TNÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òà@ àO€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NÌÌÌÌÌó óÌÌAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWHITE,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€issue€in€this€case€is€whether€plaintiff€can€combine€an€originalÏaction€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€with€a€petition€for€judicial€review€underÏthe€Uniform€Administration€Procedures€Act€when€the€sole€reliefÏrequested€under€the€Section€1983€claim€is€an€award€of€attorney€fees.€€WeÏaffirm€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€allowing€plaintiff€an€award€ofÏattorney€fees.ÌÌà àPlaintiff,€a€recipient€of€Aid€for€Dependent€Children€(AFDC)Ïbenefits,€contacted€the€Department€of€Human€Services€(DHS)€when€sheÏlearned€she€would€be€receiving€inheritance€from€her€uncleððs€estate.€€SheÏwas€told€to€keep€a€copy€of€the€check€and€receipts€for€its€use€and€wasÏfurther€advised€that€the€inheritance€would€not€affect€her€benefits.€€SevenÏmonths€after€turning€the€receipts€over€to€DHS,€plaintiff€was€advised€thatÏher€benefits€were€being€terminated.€€Following€an€appeal€and€anÏadministrative€hearing,€plaintiffððs€benefits€were€terminated€for€nineÏmonths.€Additionally,€plaintiff€was€deemed€responsible€for€theÍoverpayments€made€during€the€seven€months€in€which€DHS€failed€to€takeÏaction.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€denial€of€a€petition€to€rehear,€an€appeal,€and€aÏpetition€to€reconsider€the€final€order,€plaintiff€sought€judicial€review€inÏthe€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court€under€the€Uniform€AdministrativeÏProcedures€Act,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Sections€4„5„301€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€ÏPlaintiff's€complaint,€in€its€introductory€paragraphs,€sought€judicialÏreview€of€the€decision€made€by€DHS€finding€her€ineligible€for€continuedÏAFDC€benefits€and€sought€to€proceed€"pursuant€to€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.ðð€€ÌÌà àEach€of€the€factual€allegations€in€plaintiffððs€complaint€pertained€toÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€her€receipt€of€the€inheritance,€report€ofÏthe€inheritance,€and€termination€of€benefits.€€The€"Causes€of€Action"Ïsection€of€the€complaint€referred€again€to€the€actions€of€DHS€inÏdetermining€her€AFDC€eligibility.€€In€both,€plaintiff€asked€that€DHSÏruling€that€finding€her€ineligible€for€AFDC€benefits€be€reversed.ÌÌà àIn€her€prayer€for€relief,€in€addition€to€requesting€that€the€courtÏreverse€the€decision€of€DHS€terminating€her€AFDC€benefits,€plaintiffÏrequested€that€the€court€"[a]ssess€costs,€including€a€reasonable€attorney'sÍfee€as€provided€by€42€U.S.C.€ðð1988€.€.€.€.€"€€The€state€moved€to€dismissÏthe€request€for€attorney€fees€in€a€pretrial€motion.€€The€Chancery€CourtÏoverruled€the€motion€to€dismiss,€found€in€plaintiffððs€behalf,€and€allowedÏplaintiff€to€file€a€request€for€attorney's€fees€under€Section€1988.ÌÌ€€€€€€€From€the€ruling€of€the€Chancellor,€the€state€appealed€raising€as€itsÏsole€issue€the€propriety€of€allowing€the€award€of€attorney€fees.× ƒ, ××  ×€€€TheÏstate's€position€was€that€allowing€a€claim€for€attorney€fees€violated€theÏdoctrine€of€election€of€remedies.€€Because€plaintiff€had€sought€reliefÏunder€the€state€administrative€procedures€act,€the€state€argues,€plaintiffÏwas€estopped€from€asserting€an€action€under€the€federal€civil€rightsÏstatute.€€ÌÌÌà àIn€its€opinion,€the€Court€of€Appeals€found€that€the€election€ofÏremedies€doctrine,€relied€upon€by€the€state,€did€not€apply€to€the€facts€ofÏthe€case€before€it.€€The€court€noted€that€the€doctrine€of€election€ofÏremedies€serves€to€disallow€a€plaintiff€from€seeking€inconsistent€orÏrepugnant€remedies.€€Plaintiff's€request€for€attorney€fees,€however,€didÍnot€duplicate€and€was€not€inconsistent€with€any€remedy€provided€by€theÏAdministrative€Procedure€Act.€€The€intermediate€court€concluded:€€"IfÏplaintiff€had€sought€duplicate€relief,€an€election€would€have€beenÏrequired;€but€the€only€relief€sought€under€Section€1983€was€an€attorney'sÏfee€which€is€not€provided€by€the€Administration€Procedure€Act."€ÏFurther,€the€court€concluded,€"Section€1983€attorneys'€fees€may€beÏallowed€even€though€Section€1983€is€not€specifically€invoked,€if€the€factsÏjustify."€€òòBloomingdaleððs€by€œMail›€Ltd.,€v.€Huddlestonóó,€848€S.W.2d€52Ï(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àIn€dissent,€Judge€Cantrell€relied€upon€two€cases€in€€which€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€had€previously€disallowed€joinder€of€an€administrative€appealÏand€an€original€action.€€Those€cases,€òòGoodwin€v.€Metropolitan€Board€ofÏHealthóó,€656€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€App.€1983)€and€òòState€ex€rel.€Byram€v.ÏCity€of€Brentwoodóó,€833€S.W.2d€500€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€wereÏdistinguished€by€the€majority.ÌÌà àWe€granted€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€decide€this€issueÏof€first€impression€in€Tennessee.€€In€reviewing€our€decisions,€the€doctrineÏof€the€election€of€remedies,€the€purposes€of€Section€1988€fee€awards,€andÏthe€cases€of€other€jurisdictions,€we€conclude€that€the€judgment€of€theÍChancery€Court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€awarding€attorney€fees€toÏplaintiff€in€this€case€should€be€affirmed.ÌÌà àAs€the€state€recognizes,€state€courts€have€jurisdiction€over€SectionÏ1983€claims.€€òòPoling€v.€Goinsóó,€713€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€1986).€€MoreÏspecifically,€€plaintiff's€claim€against€DHS€for€termination€of€AFDCÏbenefits€was€cognizable€under€Section€1983.€€Nonetheless,€the€stateÏcontends€that€once€plaintiff€opted€to€pursue€judicial€review€under€the€stateÏadministrative€procedures€act,€she€was€barred€from€seeking€relief€€underÏSection€1983.ÌÌà à€The€election€of€remedies€doctrine,€which€is€the€basis€of€the€stateððsÏargument,€is€a€recognized€part€of€Tennesseeððs€jurisprudence.€€TheÏdoctrine€prohibits€and€estops€a€plaintiff€from€seeking€inconsistentÏremedies€once€a€clear€choice€has€been€made€to€pursue€a€specific€remedy.€ÏòòBarger€v.€Webbóó,€391€S.W.2d€664€(Tenn.€1965).€€The€purpose€of€theÏdoctrine€is€to€prohibit€plaintiffs€from€acquiring€double€redress€for€aÏsingle€wrong.€€Thus,€"[w]here€the€remedies€are€so€inconsistent€orÏrepugnant€that€the€pursuit€of€one€necessarily€involves€the€negation€of€theÏother"€plaintiff€may€be€required€to€elect€which€remedy€to€pursue,€or,€if€aÏchoice€has€been€made,€may€be€estopped€from€pursuing€the€other€remedy.€ÍòòMcQuiddy€Printing€Co.€v.€Harsigóó,€134€S.W.2d€197,€203€(Tenn.€App.Ï1939).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case€the€state€argues€that€plaintiff€has€sought€twoÏirreconcilable€remedies,€one€under€the€judicial€review€portion€of€theÏAdministrative€Procedures€Act€and€the€other€under€Section€1983€of€€TitleÏ42€of€the€United€States€Code.€€The€former,€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€Section€4„5„322€provides€that€a€person€"aggrieved€by€a€finalÏdecision€in€a€contested€case€is€entitled€to€judicial€review€.€.€.€which€shallÏbe€the€only€available€method€of€judicial€review."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð4„5„322(a)(1)(1995€Supp.).€€The€latter,€part€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1871,ÏprovidesÌÓÓà àà à[e]very€person€who,€under€color€of€anyÌà àà àstatute,€ordinance,€regulation,€custom,Ìà àà àor€usage,€of€any€State€or€Territory€orÌà àà àthe€District€of€Columbia,€subjects,€orÌà àà àcauses€to€be€subjected,€any€citizen€ofÌà àà àthe€United€States€.€.€.€to€the€deprivationÌà à€€à àof€any€rights,€privileges,€or€immunitiesÌà àà àsecured€by€the€Constitution€and€laws,Ìà àà àshall€be€liable€to€the€party€injured€inÌà àà àaction€at€law,€suit€in€€equity,€orÌà àà àother€proper€proceeding€for€redress.ÌÌÓÓ42€U.S.C.€ðð1983.€€ÌÌà àAs€is€obvious€from€the€review€of€the€two€statutes€at€issue€in€thisÍcase,€both€create€remedies.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlbright€v.€Oliveróó€,€œ510›€U.S.€œ1215›Ï(1994);€òòPublic€Service€Commððn€v.€General€Telephone€Co.óó,€555€S.W.2dÏ395€(Tenn.€1977).€€A€remedy€is€"a€means€employed€to€enforce€a€right€orÏredress€an€injury."€€òòAlamo€Development€Co.€v.€Thomasóó,€212€S.W.2d€606,Ï610€(Tenn.€1948).€€A€remedy€is€not€a€right€in€and€of€itself.× ƒ. ××  ×€€€Under€ourÏrecognized€election€of€remedies€doctrine,€should€the€two€remediesÏclaimed€be€inconsistent€or€repugnant,€a€plaintiff€would€be€barred€fromÏproceeding€on€the€latter.€€òòGarrett€v.€Mazda€Motors€of€Americaóó,€844ÏS.W.2d€178,€180€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àIn€plaintiff's€complaint,€she€did€not€seek€remedies€under€œSection›Ï1983€that€were€inconsistent€with€those€in€her€petition€for€judicial€review.€ÏœAs›€the€state€notes,€Section€1983€entitles€one€aggrieved€to€seek€"monetary,Ïdeclaratory,€or€injunctive€relief."€€Had€Plaintiff€sought€to€join€€a€claimÏfor€any€of€those€types€of€relief€under€Section€1983€which€wereÏinconsistent€to€remedies€available€in€a€petition€for€judicial€review€underÏthe€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€€the€state's€estoppel€claimÏwould€have€had€merit.€€€ÌÌà àThe€state€urges€that€two€prior€decisions€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏdictate€a€reversal€of€the€fee€award€in€this€case.€€In€òòGoodwin€v€.ÏMetropolitan€Board€of€Healthóó,€656€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€App.€1983),€Ïplaintiff€sought€an€appeal€under€the€Uniform€Administrative€ProceduresÏAct€from€an€administrative€decision€upholding€her€termination€fromÏemployment€with€the€Board€of€Health.€€In€her€suit€seeking€judicial€reviewÏin€the€Chancery€Court,€she€also€sought€a€declaratory€judgment€that€certainÏpolicies€of€her€employer€were€unconstitutional.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏheld€that€the€attempt€to€join€the€declaratory€judgment€action€should€haveÏbeen€denied€"condemn[ing]€.€.€.€the€joinder€of€an€appeal€with€an€originalÏaction€and€the€simultaneous€consideration€of€both€at€the€trial€level."€ÏœòòGoodwin›€v.€Metropolitan€Board€of€Healthóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€œ386.›€€In€aÏsubsequent€decision,€òòState€ex€rel.€Byram€v.€City€of€Brentwoodóó,€833ÏS.W.2d€500€(Tenn.€App.€1991),€the€Court€of€Appeals€reaffirmed€itsÏposition€in€a€case€in€which€plaintiff€sought€to€join€an€action€for€damagesÏwith€an€administrative€appeal.ÌÌÌà àNeither€œòòGoodwinóó›€nor€òòByramóó€affect€the€resolution€of€this€case.€€InÏboth€of€those€cases,€plaintiffs,€pursuing€administrative€appeals,€attemptedÏto€join€original€actions€for€inconsistent€relief€with€the€judicial€reviewÍprovided€in€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act.€€As€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€noted€in€œòòGoodwinóó,›€such€a€practice€creates€difficulties€for€the€trialÏcourt€and€the€Court€€€€of€Appeals€as€a€result€of€the€differing€rules,Ïstandards,€and€procedures.€€In€this€case,€plaintiff€sought€a€remedy,€notÏavailable€under€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€but€notÏinconsistent€with€the€relief€sought€thereunder.ÌÌà àMore€important€is€the€crucial€distinction€between€the€issues€in€thoseÏcases€and€the€one€at€bar.€€Here,€the€basis€for€plaintiffððs€petition€forÏjudicial€review€was€her€allegation€that€DHS€had€denied€her€rightsÏafforded€under€federal€law,€specifically€rights€to€AFDC€benefits.€€UponÏprevailing€upon€that€claim,€plaintiff€had,€by€definition,€established€aÏdeprivation€of€rights€under€color€of€state€law,€the€very€basis€for€recoveryÏunder€Section€1983.€€Furthermore,€that€success€entitled€her€to€attorneyÏfees€under€Section€1988€even€had€she€not€plead€that€entitlement.€ÏòòBloomingdaleððs€By€Mail€€Ltd.,€v.€Huddlestonóó,€848€S.W.2d€at€56.€€ÌÌà àThe€claims€in€œòòGoodwinóó›€and€òòByramóó,€conversely,€did€not€involveÏallegations€of€the€deprivation€of€federal€rights€under€color€of€law.€€TheÏdecisions€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€those€cases€to€disallow€joinder€ofÏinconsistent€original€actions€with€administrative€appeals€does€not€require€aÍdenial€of€a€claim€for€attorney€fees€here,€where€success€on€theÏadministrative€appeal€is,€by€definition,€the€establishment€of€a€Section€1983Ïviolation.€€ÌÌà àOur€decision€to€uphold€the€award€of€attorney€fees€in€this€context€isÏconsistent€with€authority€in€other€jurisdictions.€€€In€òòMaine€v.€Thiboutotóó,Ï448€U.S.€1€(1980),€AFDC€recipients€whose€benefits€were€terminatedÏsought€judicial€review€of€a€decision€of€the€Maine€Department€of€HumanÏServices.€€In€an€amended€complaint,€the€recipients€sought€Section€1983Ïrelief€as€well.€€Although€the€recipients€were€successful,€the€MaineÏSuperior€Court€denied€attorney€fees.€€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏreversed€the€decision€and€held€that€attorney€fees€may€be€awarded€to€theÏprevailing€party€in€"any€action"€to€enforce€the€provisions€of€Section€1983.€ÏWhile€the€joinder€of€the€claim€for€fees€with€the€judicial€review€petitionÏwas€not€analyzed,€the€result€sanctioned€that€practice.ÌÌà àOther€courts€have€more€directly€addressed€the€issue.€€In€òòMagnant€v.ÏLaneóó,€582€N.E.2d€461€(Ind.€App.€1991),€plaintiff€sought€judicial€reviewÏof€a€decision€of€the€Indiana€Board€of€Public€Welfare€denying€MedicaidÏbenefits.€€In€a€second€count€of€the€two„count€petition,€plaintiff€soughtÏinjunctive€relief€under€Section€1983€and€attorney€fees€under€Section€1988.€ÍThe€parties€settled€the€judicial€review€action€resulting€in€the€grant€ofÏMedicaid€benefits€to€plaintiff.€€The€trial€court€originally€dismissed€countÏtwo,€but,€on€a€motion€to€correct€error,€reversed€itself€and€awarded€fees.€ÏThe€Indiana€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€the€action.€€òòMagnant€v.€Laneóó,€582ÏN.E.2d€at€463€(Ind.€App.€1991)(citing€òòStevens€v.€Dept.€of€Public€Welfareóó,Ï566€N.E.2d€544€(Ind€App.€1991).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€€òòSprague€v.€Dept.€of€StateÏRevenueóó,€583€N.E.2d€214€(Ind.€Tax€1991)(noting€that€Indiana€tax€lawÏwhich€involves€administrative€remedies€does€not€evidence€legislativeÏintent€that€remedies€contained€be€exclusive).€€As€in€the€case€before€us,Ïentitlement€to€Section€1988€fees€was€established€once€plaintiff€prevailedÏ(by€settlement)€on€the€merits€since€plaintiff€was€deprived€under€color€ofÏlaw€of€federal€Medicaid€rights.€€ÌÌÓ  Óà àSimilarly€inòò€Johnson€v.€Commissioner€of€Public€Welfareóó,€643ÏN.E.2d€444€(Mass.€1994),€plaintiff€sought€judicial€review€of€theÏtermination€of€her€benefits€under€the€AFDC€program.€€In€her€petition€forÏjudicial€review,€she€requested€attorney€fees€under€Section€1988.€€TheÏMassachusetts€Supreme€Court€held€that€plaintiff€was€entitled€to€attorneyÏfees€even€though€the€lower€court€rested€its€decision€not€on€the€federalÏlaw,€but€"entirely€on€the€law€of€the€€Commonwealth."€€òòJohnson€v.ÏCommission€of€Public€Welfareóó,€643€NE.2d€at€445.€€The€court€noted€thatÍSection€1988€"creates€an€incentive€to€vindicate€federally€protected€rights.Ï.€.€.€€The€fee€incentive€is€equally€useful€and€necessary€whether€the€right€inÏquestion€is€secured€by€Federal€law€alone,€or€by€State€law€as€well."€€òòIdóó.€€atÏ445„46.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGaulin€v€.€Commissioner€of€Public€Welfareóó,€515€N.E.2dÏ583€(Mass.€1987);€òòStratos€v.€Department€of€Public€Welfareóó,€439€N.E.2dÏ778€(Mass.€1982).ÌÌà àLikewise,€and€also€in€the€context€of€enforcing€federal€rights€inÏappeals€from€termination€of€AFDC€benefits,€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏNebraska€has€allowed€the€joinder€of€a€Section€1988€claim€for€attorneyÏfees€with€the€judicial€review€of€an€administrative€action.€€In€òòMaldonado€v.ÏNebraska€Department€of€Public€Welfareóó,€393€N.W.2d€105€(Neb.€1986),Ïthe€state€contended€that€the€appeal€from€the€state€agency€was€not€an€actionÏunder€Section€1983€authorizing€the€award€of€attorney€fees€pursuant€toÏSection€1988.€€The€Nebraska€Supreme€Court€disagreed€and€upheld€the€feeÏaward€despite€the€fact€that€the€petition€for€judicial€review€did€not€citeÏSection€1983.× ƒ/ ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€are€aware€that€courts€have€ruled€contrary€to€the€position€weÏœtake€and€that€taken€in€these€cases.›€€In€some€of€œthe€contrary€rulings,›Ïplaintiffs€sought€remedies€under€Section€1983€which€were€inconsistent€toÏthose€available€on€judicial€review,€òòTatten€Partners,€L.P.€v.€New€CasleÏCounty€Bd.€Of€Assessment€Reviewóó,€642€A.2d€1251€(Del.€Super.€Ct.Ï1993);€in€others,€plaintiffs€sought€remedies€not€available€against€the€state,ÏòòHardges€v.€Department€of€Social€Servicesóó,€506€N.W.2d€532€(Mich.€App.Ï1993);€still€others€turned€on€interpretations€of€state€court€jurisdiction€andÏœprocedural›€rules,€òòMaisonet€v.€Department€of€Human€Servicesóó,€657€A.2dÏ1209€€(N.J.€1995);€òòHuman€Development€of€Erie,€Inc.€v.€Zoning€HearingÏBd.€Of€Millcreek€Townshipóó,€600€A.2d€658€(Pa.€Commw.€Ct.€1991).ÌÌà àNothing€in€those€cases€persuades€us€to€retreat€from€our€conclusionÏallowing€a€plaintiff€to€seek€attorney€fees€under€Section€1988€in€a€petitionÏfor€€judicial€review€when€the€petition€seeks€relief€from€the€wrongfulÏdenial,€under€color€of€state€law,€of€rights,€privileges,€or€immunitiesÏsecured€by€the€federal€constitution€and€laws.€€For€these€reasons€we€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€and€the€Court€of€Appeals€grantingÏplaintiff€attorney€fees€under€Section€1988.€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌœBirch,›€C.J.ÌœDrowota,›€Anderson,€Reid,€œJ.J.›Ì