Laurence G. Russell v. National Mediation Board

Fifth Circuit

Laurence G. Russell v. National Mediation Board

805 F.2d 552, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34320, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 12,097

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1986

Docket86-1450

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 F.2d 552 (Laurence G. Russell v. National Mediation Board) 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

Laurence G. Russell v. National Mediation Board, 805 F.2d 552, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34320, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 12,097 (5th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In an obvious effort to avoid further litigation over fees in this case, this court in Russell v. National Mediation Board, 1 gave express instructions to the district court concerning determination of the issue of recovery of attorney’s fees should that issue arise on remand. No application for reconsideration of that opinion was filed. The district court followed our instructions to the letter. While the instructions may have been dicta, they were purposive, designed to prevent the request for attorney’s fees from resulting in a second major litigation. 2 We may have power to reopen the matter, but we decline to do so. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

1

. 775 F.2d 1284, 1291 n. 8 (5th Cir.1985).

2

. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).

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

PER CURIAM:

In an obvious effort to avoid further litigation over fees in this case, this court in Russell v. National Mediation Board, 1 gave express instructions to the district court concerning determination of the issue of recovery of attorney’s fees should that issue arise on remand. No application for reconsideration of that opinion was filed. The district court followed our instructions to the letter. While the instructions may have been dicta, they were purposive, designed to prevent the request for attorney’s fees from resulting in a second major litigation. 2 We may have power to reopen the matter, but we decline to do so. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

1

. 775 F.2d 1284, 1291 n. 8 (5th Cir.1985).

2

. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 F.2d 552, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 34320, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 12,097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurence-g-russell-v-national-mediation-board-ca5-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack