Nash v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 27 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | 87-2485,Nos. 86-2327,s. 86-2327 |
| Citation | 859 F.2d 1210 |
| Parties | 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3143, 110 Lab.Cas. P 55,979 John NASH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Delbert CHANDLER, et al., Defendants, The City of Tyler, Texas, and Willie Hardy, Chief of Police, Etc., and The State of Texas, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
(Opinion June 30, 5th Cir.1988 848 F.2d 567)
Before BROWN, RUBIN, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
On the original appeal the State of Texas, an intervenor pursuant to notice from the District Court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2403(b), attacked the District Court's award (i) of any fees whatsoever, and (ii) the holding of joint and several liability with the City and Hardy for such fees. We rejected (i) but upholding (ii) ordered remand for allocation. Texas did not file any petition for rehearing.
Under the circumstances, the decision to remand for appropriate allocation remains consistent with the Supreme Court's pronouncement that "fee liability runs with merits liability," Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 at 168, 105 S.Ct. 3099, at 3106, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) and Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) and the general proposition that a state is not liable when present only to defend the statute by virtue of Sec. 2403 in a case in which the state was not an actor in the transaction of the underlying suit. Unlike Tennessee, which had no liability for the tortious damages resulting from conduct of state representatives sued in their individual capacity, here Texas, through its Attorney General, became and was a party and lost on the constitutionality of Texas Revised Civil Statute Article 5154d Sec. 1. 1
The City of Tyler and Hardy complain of our holding that they do not challenge the determination that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties. We retract such specific holding but find no basis for revoking or modifying the District Court's award of attorney's fees and costs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dahlem by Dahlem v. Board of Educ. of Denver Public Schools
...the expiration of the underlying cause of action does not moot a controversy over attorney's fees already incurred. Nash v. Chandler, 859 F.2d 1210, 1211 (5th Cir.1988); Grano v. Barry, 733 F.2d 164, 168 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1984); United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.1981), cert. d......
-
Goldin v. Bartholow
...have found that mootness of the underlying action does not moot a controversy over attorney's fees already incurred. Nash v. Chandler, 859 F.2d 1210, 1211 (5th Cir.1988); see Campanioni v. Barr, 962 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir.1992). In such cases, both parties retain an interest in recovering o......
-
Owen v. Regence Bluecross Blueshield of Utah
...108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990)). 18. Dahlem v. Bd. of Ed. of Denver Pub. Sch., 901 F.2d 1508, 1511 (10th Cir.1990); see also Nash v. Chandler, 859 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir.1988) (attorneys fees awardable even where case is dismissed as moot). 19. 855 F.2d 668, 675 (10th Cir.1988). 20. See Committee for t......
-
Thomas v. Reeves
...In Nash v. Chandler, for example, the court held that "[f]ees are allowable even though the injunction is dismissed as moot." 859 F.2d 1210, 1211 (5th Cir. 1988). And, in Doe v. Marshall, the Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction as moot, but still remanded the case for a determina......