Dennis v. S & S Consolidated Rural High School District

577 F.2d 338
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 31, 1978
DocketNo. 76-3803
StatusPublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 577 F.2d 338 (Dennis v. S & S Consolidated Rural High School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dennis v. S & S Consolidated Rural High School District, 577 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1978).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Precedentially, this is a very important case. It comes to us in the context of attorneys’ fees wherein the parties have agreed to the settlement of a class action (sex discrimination) Title VII Civil Rights Act suit. In the proposed settlement, the defendant agreed to an injunction prohibiting any further discrimination on the basis of sex. It agreed to make back pay awards to the named plaintiff and seven of the class members — the named plaintiff receiving $10,842 and the remaining members of the class receiving a total of $2,346. Over and above the back pay award the defendant agreed to pay $12,000 attorneys’ fees.

The District Judge held that although the parties had agreed to the settlement the Court had a duty to inquire into the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees. Upon his analysis of the law and the facts he found that a reasonable fee would be $8,231.25. He declined to approve the settlement unless the fee was reduced accordingly.

The opinion and order of the District Court is reported, Foster v. Boise-Cascade, Inc., 420 F.Supp. 674 (S.D.Tex., 1976).

The attorney for the class action plaintiff appeals, contending that she is entitled to the full amount agreed upon by the parties.

Since the opinion of the District Court is fully reported, 420 F.Supp. 674-695, no good purpose would be served by restating here the careful and penetrating analysis there applied to the decision of this controversy. Suffice it to say, we agree that the District Court was not bound by the agreement of the parties as to the amount of attorney fees, and we are unable to say that its resolution of the dispute amounted to an abuse of judicial discretion.

The judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Metivier v. Town of Grafton
148 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D. Massachusetts, 2001)
Gonzales v. Galveston Independent School District
865 F. Supp. 1241 (S.D. Texas, 1994)
Wright v. Glover
778 F. Supp. 418 (N.D. Illinois, 1991)
Charles H. Von Stein v. George A. Brescher
904 F.2d 572 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
David A. Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency
876 F.2d 1209 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)
Howard M. Rosenstein v. The City of Dallas, Texas
876 F.2d 392 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)
Neu v. Corcoran
869 F.2d 662 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Willbanks v. Smith County, Tex.
661 F. Supp. 212 (E.D. Texas, 1987)
Ratliff v. City of Milwaukee
795 F.2d 612 (Seventh Circuit, 1986)
Brew v. School Bd. of Orange County, Florida
626 F. Supp. 709 (M.D. Florida, 1985)
Sullivan v. School Board Of Pinellas County
773 F.2d 1182 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Waylon Rex Vaughn v. Mary Lee Shannon
758 F.2d 1535 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Augustine v. Edgar
576 F. Supp. 1141 (N.D. Illinois, 1983)
Naragon v. Wharton
572 F. Supp. 1117 (M.D. Louisiana, 1983)
Loraine Pollock v. Baxter Manor Nursing Home
706 F.2d 236 (Eighth Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
577 F.2d 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-s-s-consolidated-rural-high-school-district-ca5-1978.