Neudecker v. Philpot

D.C. Circuit

Neudecker v. Philpot

174 F.2d 668, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 28, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2265

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1949

DocketNo. 9910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 F.2d 668 (Neudecker v. Philpot) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neudecker v. Philpot, 174 F.2d 668, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 28, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2265 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In dismissing on her own motion a wife’s complaint for divorce, the District Court denied counsel fees to her attorneys. They appeal from this denial.

In view of a later colloquy between court and counsel, it is not clear to us from the court’s memorandum and order whether (1) fees were denied on the theory that the court had no authority to award them in the circumstances of the particular case, or (2) the court decided, in the exercise of the discretion granted by the statute, D.C. Code 1940, § 16 — 410, that no fees should be awarded. We think the court had authority to award or deny fees and the exercise of its discretion was required. The case must therefore be remanded for a further order. If discretion was exercised by the appealed order, a new order denying fees or confirming the appealed order will be sufficient.

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

PER CURIAM.

In dismissing on her own motion a wife’s complaint for divorce, the District Court denied counsel fees to her attorneys. They appeal from this denial.

In view of a later colloquy between court and counsel, it is not clear to us from the court’s memorandum and order whether (1) fees were denied on the theory that the court had no authority to award them in the circumstances of the particular case, or (2) the court decided, in the exercise of the discretion granted by the statute, D.C. Code 1940, § 16 — 410, that no fees should be awarded. We think the court had authority to award or deny fees and the exercise of its discretion was required. The case must therefore be remanded for a further order. If discretion was exercised by the appealed order, a new order denying fees or confirming the appealed order will be sufficient.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.2d 668, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 28, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neudecker-v-philpot-cadc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack