City of Birmingham v. Horn
Decision Date | 17 August 2001 |
Citation | 810 So.2d 667 |
Parties | CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. William Fred HORN et al. William Fred Horn et al. v. City of Birmingham et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., and Peter H. Burke of Whatley Drake, L.L.C., Birmingham; Kenneth L. Thomas and Valerie L. Acoff of Thomas, Means & Gillis, Birmingham; and Tamara Harris Johnson and Michael Melton, city attys., for appellant/cross appellee City of Birmingham.
W.L. Williams, Jr., Birmingham; and David A. Sullivan, Birmingham, for appellees/cross appellants William Fred Horn et al.
Kenneth Smith, director of legal services, and Erin Smith, assoc. gen. counsel, Alabama League of Municipalities for amicus curiae Alabama League of Municipalities.
The question presented in these appeals, collectively stated, is whether the Jefferson Circuit Court erred by holding that a group of citizens (sometimes referred to herein as "the plaintiffs") who sued the City of Birmingham ("the City") are entitled to an award of attorney fees totaling $1,785,939, an amount computed by the socalled "lodestar method." The court awarded these fees to the plaintiffs for their role in litigation involving the placement of a waste transfer station and recycling center in a Birmingham neighborhood by Browning Ferris Industries of Alabama, Inc. ("BFI"). See generally Horn v. City of Birmingham, 648 So.2d 607 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ("Horn I"); Horn v. City of Birmingham, 718 So.2d 691 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) ("Horn II"); and Battle v. City of Birmingham, 656 So.2d 344 (Ala.1995). The City appeals, contending that the trial court, in awarding attorney fees, incorrectly applied the method it used to compute the fees; the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the order awarding attorney fees, contending that the trial court used an inappropriate method to compute the fees. As to the City's appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a judgment; as to the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, we affirm.
To facilitate an understanding of this complex case and the stakes involved, we set out its factual background, in pertinent part, as it was previously presented by this Court in Ex parte Horn, 718 So.2d 694 (Ala.1998):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
...principally because fee litigation is tangential to the primary litigation and of less social value. (See City of Birmingham v. Horn (Ala.2001) 810 So.2d 667, 684 ["While the law clearly allows for a fee award with respect to [fee litigation], we do not consider this time to be vital to the......
-
Oden v. Vilsack
...determination of whether an attorney fee is reasonable is within the sounddiscretion of the trial court . . ." City of Birmingham v. Horn, 810 So. 2d 667, 681 (Ala. 2001) (quotation omitted). "Nevertheless, the trial court's order regarding an attorney fee must allow for meaningful review b......
-
Alabama Dem v. Town of Lowndesboro
...648 So.2d 607 (Ala.Civ.App.1994); Ex parte Horn, 718 So.2d 694 (Ala.1998); Ex parte Hooks, 728 So.2d 631 (Ala.1998); City of Birmingham v. Horn, 810 So.2d 667 (Ala.2001). Those cases held that attorneys fees may be awarded by a court when `the efforts of the plaintiff's attorneys render a p......
-
Clemons v. State
...courts are not bound to apply obiter dictum under the law-of-the-case doctrine. Gray, 553 So.2d at 81;see also City of Birmingham v. Horn, 810 So.2d 667, 681, n. 1 (Ala.2001). Here, the Alabama Supreme Court's statement relating to Clemons's ability to raise earlier his Tennard/Smith claim ......