Ojeda v. Hackney, 71-1669.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71-1669.,71-1669.
• Citation: 452 F.2d 947
• Parties: Ramona OJEDA et al., Plaintiffs, v. Burton G. HACKNEY, Commissioner of Public Welfare of the State of Texas, Defendant-Appellee, R. M. Helton, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

452 F.2d 947 (1972)

Ramona OJEDA et al., Plaintiffs, v.Burton G. HACKNEY, Commissioner of Public Welfare of the State of Texas, Defendant-Appellee, R. M. Helton, Appellant.

No. 71-1669.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 5, 1972.

Robert M. Helton, of Short & Helton, Wichita Falls, Tex., pro se.

Pat Bailey, Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Texas, Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred Walker, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., J. C. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The only issue raised in the present appeal is the propriety of the district court's denial of fees to the appellant attorney for successfully litigating a class action suit which obtained for the class an adjudication that benefits due under the welfare laws of the State of Texas had been erroneously withheld.

The question of the attorney's right to recover fees was posed to the court below solely in the context of whether existing Texas statutes and the State's Constitution permitted such fees to be recovered.In the course of its holding, the Court found that legal services of the value of 10,000 dollars had been rendered, but ruled "there is no way under presently existing Texas laws that the attorney for the plaintiffs can be awarded attorneys' fees . . .".

On this appeal appellant contends that the district judge, as a federal chancellor, possesses an equitable discretion to award attorneys' fees in a class action suit despite the provisions of State legal restraints.We agree.SeeSprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184(1939)andDodge v. Tulleys, 144 U.S. 451, 12 S.Ct. 728, 36 L.Ed. 501(1892).The matter is committed to the unfettered discretion of the district judge.

The above exerpt from its opinion indicates that the district judge may have incorrectly conceived that the State legal proscriptions deprived the court of such discretion.If this is true, this court cannot determine in the first instance how the district judge would exercise such discretion.We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the cause to the district court.

Since the case must be remanded, the following general observations may be helpful.It would initially be important to determine whether or not all or any part of these public funds have been disbursed by the State to the claimants.If they have not, the...