Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co.

Sixth Circuit

Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co.

587 F.2d 841, 23 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 787

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1978

DocketNo. 77-3009

StatusPublished

This text of 587 F.2d 841 (Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co., 587 F.2d 841, 23 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 787 (6th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

No active Judge of this Court having requested that a vote be taken on appellee’s suggestion that her petition for rehearing be heard en banc, the petition for rehearing was referred to the panel for disposition.

Upon consideration, we hereby modify our opinion only in the respect herein stated. After determining the allowance to be made to plaintiff for attorney’s fees in representing her individually, the District Court shall separately determine the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to, and expenses incurred by, the plaintiff in obtaining the injunction and in establishing the illegality of the company’s challenged practices. In making that determination the Court shall consider the amount finally allowed to the class. In other words, if the recovery by the class is in only a small amount, an award such as was previously made by the District Court, could not be supported.

In all other respects, our opinion is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied.

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

ORDER

No active Judge of this Court having requested that a vote be taken on appellee’s suggestion that her petition for rehearing be heard en banc, the petition for rehearing was referred to the panel for disposition.

Upon consideration, we hereby modify our opinion only in the respect herein stated. After determining the allowance to be made to plaintiff for attorney’s fees in representing her individually, the District Court shall separately determine the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to, and expenses incurred by, the plaintiff in obtaining the injunction and in establishing the illegality of the company’s challenged practices. In making that determination the Court shall consider the amount finally allowed to the class. In other words, if the recovery by the class is in only a small amount, an award such as was previously made by the District Court, could not be supported.

In all other respects, our opinion is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 F.2d 841, 23 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-mid-continent-spring-co-ca6-1978.