¶1*1194Stuart M. Kessler, Chicago, 111., for plaintiffs-appellants.
¶2Wayne B. Giampietro, Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellee.
¶3Before SWYGERT, SPRECHER and BAUER, Circuit Judges.
¶5The district court denied plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We reverse and remand.
¶6Plaintiffs won a jury verdict of only one dollar in their civil rights action against defendant. Although this may be considered a small victory, plaintiffs did win a verdict in their favor. They are thus the prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, contrary to the district court’s conclusion.
¶7The district court here did not articulate any “special circumstances” which would render any award of fees unjust. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). Nor did the court consider the appropriate amount of the award, since it ruled that plaintiffs did not prevail.
¶8In Murphy v. Kolovitz, 635 F.2d 662 (7th Cir. 1981), and Muscare v. Quinn, 614 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1980), we set forth rules to guide the court’s discretion in deciding what fee award, if any, is appropriate. See also Coop v. City of South Bend, 635 F.2d 652 (7th Cir. 1980). On remand, the district court should consider whether any special circumstances exist, and if not, should decide the appropriate amount of the fee award in light of these decisions.
¶9The order of the district court is REVERSED AND REMANDED.