Maddrix v. Dize, 5491.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 5491.,5491. |
| Citation | 155 F.2d 1019 |
| Parties | MADDRIX et al. v. DIZE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Simon E. Sobeloff, of Baltimore, Md. (Sigmund Levin, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
Upon the first appeal in this case, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 584, we affirmed the judgment of the District Court that Dize should pay to Maddrix the sum of $1052.10 and a fee of $75 for overtime compensation, liquidated damages and an attorney's fee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The controversy in this court related to the right of Maddrix to overtime compensation and no question was raised as to the amount of the fee. Subsequently the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and affirmed the judgment. Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296.
Maddrix' attorney then filed a petition in the District Court for an additional fee for services rendered in the appellate courts, including the preparation of the brief and the argument in this court, the preparation of brief in opposition to the petition of Dize for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, and the preparation of the brief and the argument of the case on its merits in that court. The District Judge was of the opinion that he was without power to allow an additional fee and dismissed the petition. D.C., 61 F.Supp. 946. Upon appeal from this action we held, 4 Cir., 153 F.2d 274, 276, that the District Judge had the power and we therefore reversed the order and remanded the case so that "a suitable allowance" might be made to the attorney "for services rendered upon the appeal to this court and in connection with the application to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari and upon a consideration of the case by that court." Upon the remand the District Judge allowed an additional fee of $100. This allowance was not in accordance with the mandate of this court since the sum of $100 was obviously not a suitable allowance for the services rendered. The order of the District Court will therefore be reversed and in lieu thereof the case will be remanded with direction to the District Court to issue an order allowing the attorney a fee of Seven Hundred Dollars ($700).
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heitmuller v. Berkow
...v. Associated Linen Suppliers Laundry, 1945, 185 Misc. 123, 57 N.Y.S.2d 92. It is interesting to note the action finally taken in the Maddrix v. Dize case, which is cited above. After the original action had resulted in judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Fourth Circuit Co......
-
Pierce v. Concrete Products & Supply Co., 43997
...the amount of attorney's fee allowed by the trial courts. Broach v. McPherson, 223 Ark. 145, 264 S.W. 629 (1954); Maddrix v. Dize, 155 F.2d 1019 (4th Cir. 1946); Greenberg v. Arsenal Bldg. Corp., 144 F.2d 292 (2nd Cir. We hold therefore that the trial court erroneously refused to allow the ......
-
Welfare Federation Act Committee of 1000 v. Richardson, 36360
...for services on appeal, where allowances did not cover services beyond trial court. Dumas v. King, supra. See also Maddrix v. Dize, 4 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 1019, allowing fee of $700 after appeal, wherein plaintiff had judgment for $1,052 as overtime compensation and liquidated It seems clea......
-
Broach v. McPherson
...be more in keeping with the amount of the judgment, the quantity of work involved, and the ability shown by the record. In Maddrix v. Dize, 4 Cir., 155 F.2d 1019, there was a judgment for $1,052.10 and the trial court allowed a fee of $75. The appellate court increased the fee to $700. In M......