Kenneth J. Arenson v. Southern University Law Center

Fifth Circuit

Kenneth J. Arenson v. Southern University Law Center

53 F.3d 80, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10740, 1995 WL 283759

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1995

Docket93-3544

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 53 F.3d 80 (Kenneth J. Arenson v. Southern University Law Center) 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

Kenneth J. Arenson v. Southern University Law Center, 53 F.3d 80, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10740, 1995 WL 283759 (5th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion January 26, 1995, 5th Cir., 43 F.3d 194)

Before JONES, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Kenneth J. Arenson petitions this Court on rehearing for a clear ruling on his claim to attorney’s fees, interest on his judgment, and relief based on his Title VII claim. For purposes of clarification, we confirm that Arenson is entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party at trial and on appeal and to interest. We remand to the district court for determination of a reasonable fee and appropriate interest. However, Appellant’s request for Title VII relief is denied because Arenson waived his Title VII claim by failing to seek a ruling on that issue from the Arenson I panel.

Except as specifically granted above, Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the district court for determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee and appropriate interest.

Clarification GRANTED; case REMANDED.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion January 26, 1995, 5th Cir., 43 F.3d 194)

Before JONES, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Kenneth J. Arenson petitions this Court on rehearing for a clear ruling on his claim to attorney’s fees, interest on his judgment, and relief based on his Title VII claim. For purposes of clarification, we confirm that Arenson is entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party at trial and on appeal and to interest. We remand to the district court for determination of a reasonable fee and appropriate interest. However, Appellant’s request for Title VII relief is denied because Arenson waived his Title VII claim by failing to seek a ruling on that issue from the Arenson I panel.

Except as specifically granted above, Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the district court for determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee and appropriate interest.

Clarification GRANTED; case REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F.3d 80, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10740, 1995 WL 283759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-j-arenson-v-southern-university-law-center-ca5-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack