772 F.2d 35, 41 (3d Cir.1985) (emphasis added). Most of the time, though, this rule has been applied in cases where a plaintiff sought nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages, or some combination thereof, in addition to equitable relief. See, e.g., Donovan, 336 F.3d at 217 (case not moot where plaintiffs sought “nominal damages, presumed damages, and/or compensatory damages” and “punitive damages”); Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 260 (3d Cir.2007) (case not moot where plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages); Brown v. Philadelphia Mun. Ct., 47 Fed.Appx. 129, 131 (3d Cir.2002) (case not moot where compensatory damages sought in an addition to injunctive and declarative relief); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 314 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, the Court of Appeals does not
holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under  1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages recognizing availability of nominal damages for violations of constitutional rights notwithstanding statutory bar in prison litigation  reform act 42 usc  1997ee holding that a prisoners claim was saved by his request for nominal and punitive damages even though he could not recover compensatory damages under the prison litigation reform act holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated