Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 5546
| Decision Date | 29 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 5546,5648.,5546 |
| Citation | 147 F.2d 259 |
| Parties | ROOT REFINING CO. v. UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Robert T. McCracken, of Philadelphia, Pa., and John R. McCullough, of New York City, for Universal Oil Products Co.
Thorley vonHolst and J. Bernard Thiess, both of Chicago, Ill., amicus curiae, for Root Refining Co.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, JONES, GOODRICH, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Granted April 23, 1945. See 65 S.Ct. 1029.
The proponents of the motion sub judice ask this court to award them reasonable counsel fees for services rendered as amici curiæ performed at our direction and also seek reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. The fees sought are to compensate the movants and the estate of former Judge Arthur C. Denison.1 The amici appeared in open court, notice having been given to both the plaintiff and the defendant, and suggested that our judgments in the above entitled causes had been procured by the plaintiff by corrupting a former judge of this court. The amici stated that they no longer represented the defendant, which, following the judgments of this tribunal, had executed an agreement of settlement with the plaintiff, but appeared on behalf of certain other interests adversely affected by the judgments. We stated that if the movants filed a petition as amici curiæ embracing the allegations made by them, we would proceed in the premises as seemed warranted. A petition was presented. By an order entered November 26, 1941, the court appointed a master to hear the evidence and in effect directed the amici to proceed with the case.
An answer2 was filed by the plaintiff. Hearings before the master began in June, 1941, and continued through April, 1943. The transcript of the proceedings, with exhibits, consists of more than thirty-five hundred printed pages. The amici or attorneys associated with them were compelled to make trips to Philadelphia, to New York, to Cleveland, to Battle Creek, and to various points in Florida in order to interview numerous witnesses, to appear before the master and for various other purposes. After testimony was concluded, the amici argued the case before the master and prepared and filed briefs and requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The master found in favor of the amici on the fundamental issue. Exceptions to the master's report were filed and amici prepared and filed a brief in this court. This consisted of over three hundred printed pages. The argument before this court consumed two days. After consideration we entered an order approving the master's report, set aside the judgments and recalled our mandates. Excluding from their respective computations all time expended by the amici and their office associates prior to the date of our order appointing the master, it appears that the amici and those associated with them expended a total of over 9000 hours in the preparation, trial and argument of the case. The amici themselves expended approximately 5000 hours of work following the entry of the order of this court of November 26, 1941.
No agreement was made in advance of the completion of the work, nor could any be made, settling the compensation of the amici. What should their compensation be? As was said in In re Osofsky, D. C., 50 F.2d 925, 927, by Judge Woolsey:
As was pointed out by Judge Woolsey, each case differs to some extent in respect to the importance of the several elements referred to.
The members of the court are agreed that the court has power to award the amici compensation for their services to the court, to be paid by the plaintiff, and that under the circumstances of this case the amici are entitled to be awarded reasonable compensation for those services. Our difference of opinion lies in the question as to what is reasonable.
Using the criteria referred to in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Whitman Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
... 125 F. Supp. 137 ... WILLIAM WHITMAN COMPANY, Inc. (formerly The National Refining Company), Plaintiff, ... UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant ... Civ. A. No. 987 ... and the Root Refining Company, respectively, charging them with the infringement of two of its patents, the ... ...
-
American Iron and Steel Institute v. E.P.A.
...F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1977).13 430 U.S. 112, 97 S.Ct. 965, 51 L.Ed.2d 204 (1977).14 Within a footnote in Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 147 F.2d 259, 260 n.2 (3d Cir. 1945), this Court stated: "if no corruption (in procuring judgments) had been practiced this court would not ......
-
Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
...for their services and the additional amount of $54,606.57 as reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses. Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 259. These amounts had in fact been already paid to the amici by their oil company clients, and the awards therefor......
-
DeGioia v. United States Lines Company
...Life Ins. Co. v. Keyes, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 382, certiorari denied 321 U.S. 765, 64 S.Ct. 521, 88 L.Ed. 1061; Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 259, 261, reversed in part 328 U.S. 575, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 90 L.Ed. 1447. Moreover, the actual total disbursements were $......