Dorothy FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTHWEST MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

777 F.2d 329, 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 872, 1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 791, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24927, 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,793
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 4, 1985
Docket83-4679
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 777 F.2d 329 (Dorothy FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTHWEST MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees) 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
Dorothy FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTHWEST MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, 777 F.2d 329, 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 872, 1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 791, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24927, 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,793 (5th Cir. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On the appellant’s Petition for Rehearing, the court orders that the following be substituted for footnote 31 of the court’s original opinion, 765 F.2d at 1291:

31 Frazier also moved under Rule 59(c) for the district court to alter or amend its judgment in favor of the Lifetron defendants if the court granted her Rule 60(b)(6) motion with respect to the Northwest defendants. Because we uphold the court’s denial of Frazier’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, we need not address this Rule 59(c) motion.

That part of the court’s original opinion discussing attorney’s fees (from the second full paragraph on 765 F.2d 1292 (beginning with “With regard to appellant’s claim for an interim award of attorney’s fees... ”) to the end of section IV, at 765 F.2d 1295) is withdrawn, and the following is substituted:

With regard to appellant’s claim for an interim award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, we regard our decision in Uviedo v. Steves Sash & Door Co., 753 F.2d 369 (on petition for rehearing), peti *330 tion for reh’g en banc denied, 760 F.2d 87 (1985), as controlling and therefore deny appellant’s claim for interim attorney’s fees in the present case. Appellant’s success in obtaining a preliminary injunction cannot be considered separable from or unrelated to her ultimate failure to prevail on the merits of her claim.

In all other respects, the appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

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

Related

Kennedy v. Biden
W.D. Louisiana, 2024
Rayburn v. Hogue
241 F.3d 1341 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Brantley Tyler Rayburn v. Dora L. Farnesi
241 F.3d 1341 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Varnado v. Department of Employment and Training
687 So. 2d 1013 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
Hamilton v. Illinois Central Railroad
894 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D. Mississippi, 1995)
Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert
49 F.3d 1442 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)
No. 93-4122
49 F.3d 1442 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)
LaRouche v. Kezer
20 F.3d 68 (Second Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
777 F.2d 329, 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 872, 1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 791, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24927, 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothy-frazier-plaintiff-appellant-v-the-board-of-trustees-of-northwest-ca5-1985.