Ollie Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, Elvert Chisley v. Richland Parish School Board

Fifth Circuit

Ollie Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, Elvert Chisley v. Richland Parish School Board

517 F.2d 1032, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13213, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 8, 1975

Docket73-2619, 73-3529

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 517 F.2d 1032 (Ollie Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, Elvert Chisley v. Richland Parish School 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

Ollie Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, Elvert Chisley v. Richland Parish School Board, 517 F.2d 1032, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13213, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,376 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied insofar as it relates to the reinstatement of appellees Cornist and Chisley. No member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated insofar as it awards back pay and attorney fees. The cause is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of whether back pay may be awarded, see e. g., Adkins v. Duval County-School Board, 511 F.2d 690 (CA5, 1975); Mitchell v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 507 F.2d 662 (CA5, 1975), and for reconsideration of whether attorney fees are to be awarded on the basis of bad faith, see e. g., Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d 619 (CA5); Doe v. Poelker, 515 F.2d 541 (CA8, 6/2/75); Samuel v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 395 F.Supp. 1275 (W.D.Pa., 6/6/75). 1

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Costs are assessed against the defendants.

1

. Alyeska Pipeline Service v. The Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) refers in footnote 46 to the instant case as one in which the court erroneously employed the private attorney general approach as a basis for award of attorney fees. That reference does not dispose of the attorney fee issue, however, since the district judge in this case based his award on alternative rationales of the private attorney general concept and of obdurate obstinacy by the defendants in their repeated attempts to dismiss the two plaintiffs. See Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, 495 F.2d 188, 192 (CA5, 1974). See also Wallace v. House, supra.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied insofar as it relates to the reinstatement of appellees Cornist and Chisley. No member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated insofar as it awards back pay and attorney fees. The cause is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of whether back pay may be awarded, see e. g., Adkins v. Duval County-School Board, 511 F.2d 690 (CA5, 1975); Mitchell v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 507 F.2d 662 (CA5, 1975), and for reconsideration of whether attorney fees are to be awarded on the basis of bad faith, see e. g., Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d 619 (CA5); Doe v. Poelker, 515 F.2d 541 (CA8, 6/2/75); Samuel v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 395 F.Supp. 1275 (W.D.Pa., 6/6/75). 1

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Costs are assessed against the defendants.

1

. Alyeska Pipeline Service v. The Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) refers in footnote 46 to the instant case as one in which the court erroneously employed the private attorney general approach as a basis for award of attorney fees. That reference does not dispose of the attorney fee issue, however, since the district judge in this case based his award on alternative rationales of the private attorney general concept and of obdurate obstinacy by the defendants in their repeated attempts to dismiss the two plaintiffs. See Cornist v. Richland Parish School Board, 495 F.2d 188, 192 (CA5, 1974). See also Wallace v. House, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 F.2d 1032, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13213, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 10,376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ollie-cornist-v-richland-parish-school-board-elvert-chisley-v-richland-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack