Tennessee Gas v. 104 Acres
This text of Tennessee Gas v. 104 Acres (Tennessee Gas v. 104 Acres) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Tennessee Gas v. 104 Acres, (1st Cir. 1994).
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-2126
TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
104 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,
IN PROVIDENCE COUNTY,
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND,
Defendant - Appellee,
WALTER R. AND CLARA J. LAWRENCE,
JUDITH B. MOREAU, ET AL.,
Defendants - Appellants.
____________________
No. 94-1283
TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER R. LAWRENCE; CLARA J. LAWRENCE;
JUDITH B. MOREAU,
Defendants - Appellants.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
_____________________
Morton L. Simons, with whom Barbara M. Simons, Simons &
_________________ __________________ _________
Simons, Robert S. Bruzzi and Law Office of Robert S. Bruzzi, were
______ ________________ ______________________________
on brief for appellants.
Paul M. Sanford, with whom Kathryn S. Holley, Christine M.
_______________ __________________ ____________
Gravelle, Peter V. Lacouture and Tillinghast Collins & Graham,
________ ___________________ _____________________________
were on brief for appellee.
____________________
August 24, 1994
____________________
-2-
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Defendants Judith Moreau and
_____________
Walter and Clara Lawrence ("the landowners") appeal the district
court's thirty percent reduction of an award of attorneys' fees
based upon a failure of the landowners' counsel to adequately
document the charges. The landowners also appeal the district
court's failure to include certain costs and prejudgment interest
in the award, and the district court's denial of a subsequent fee
application seeking reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred
in prosecuting the initial fee application. We affirm in part
and reverse in part.
I.
I.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
__________
The facts of this case are set forth with greater
detail in the district court's opinion regarding the principal
fee application in Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of
___________________________ _____________
Land, 828 F. Supp. 123 (D. R.I. 1993). In 1986, plaintiff-
____
appellee Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. ("Tennessee Gas") sought a
certificate of public convenience from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ("FERC") to allow Tennessee Gas to
construct facilities for the transmission of natural gas on the
landowners' property. In May 1989, FERC issued Tennessee Gas a
conditional certificate for construction on the property. In
December 1989 and February 1990, Tennessee Gas brought eminent
domain proceedings in the district court against the landowners,
seeking to obtain rights-of-way and a portion of their land in
order to construct and maintain the natural gas pipeline. The
-3-
landowners retained counsel to intervene in the FERC proceeding
and requested FERC to modify its May 1989 certificate by
rerouting the final leg of the proposed line to utilize existing
rights-of-way. After proceedings in the district court and a
proceeding before FERC, Tennessee Gas changed the route of its
pipeline and dismissed the eminent domain proceedings against the
landowners.
The landowners moved for costs and attorneys' fees,
pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act ("Relocation Act"), 42 U.S.C. 4601 et
__
seq. On August 25, 1993, the district court awarded the
____
landowners attorneys' fees but disallowed thirty percent of the
fees requested by the law firm of Simons & Simons ("Simons"), one
of the two firms that represented the landowners, because it
found that the firm failed to adequately document its charges.
Tennessee Gas paid the fee award on September 7, 1993. On
September 22, 1993, the landowners filed a supplemental fee
application seeking reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred
in prosecuting the principal fee application during the period
from April 29, 1992, to March 1993. On September 24, 1993, the
landowners filed a notice of appeal from the district court's
order with respect to the principal fee application. On March 2,
1994, the district court entered judgment denying the
supplemental fee petition because the court determined that the
petition was untimely. The landowners appealed the March 2
order. In April, this court ordered that both appeals be
-4-
consolidated.
-5-
II.
II.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________
A. Reduction in Attorneys' Fees
A. Reduction in Attorneys' Fees
The landowners sought an award of costs and attorneys'
fees under 42 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Grendel's Den, Inc. v. John P. Larkin, Cambridge License Commission, Grendel's Den, Inc. v. John P. Larkin
749 F.2d 945 (First Circuit, 1984)
United States v. Metropolitan District Commission, Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc.
847 F.2d 12 (First Circuit, 1988)
William Weinberger v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
925 F.2d 518 (First Circuit, 1991)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Providence County
828 F. Supp. 123 (D. Rhode Island, 1993)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Tennessee Gas v. 104 Acres, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tennessee-gas-v-104-acres-ca1-1994.