damages. Id., § 2.10, at 2-18. One court has described the first type of nominal damages as follows: [Wjhenever any cognizable right of a person is violated, though there be no substantial injury nor general nor consequential damages, the law requires that the right be declared and affirmed and disapproval of its violation significantly voiced through the form of an award of nominal damages. Cottone v. Cristiano, 1 Misc.2d 1036, 156 N.Y.S.2d 115, 117-18 (City Ct. of City of N.Y.1956). It is this type of claim for nominal damages which Zok presents. In Farrar v. Cain, 756 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.1985), appeal following remand, Estate of Farrar v. Cain, 941 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir.1991), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, sub nom., Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 113 S.Ct. 566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992) (<HOLDING>), the jury found that Hobby had violated the
holding that when a jury finds section 1988 liability but fails to award damages nominal damages are available to plaintiff holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees holding nominal damages sufficient to establish prevailing party status but affirming denial of attorneys fees on ground that award of nominal damages does not usually entitle a prevailing party to fees under 28 usc  1988 holding the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained in response to the question whether a nominal damages award is the sort of technical insignificant victory that cannot confer prevailing party status