Shepherd v. SUMMIT MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
Decision Date | 24 March 2000 |
Citation | 794 So.2d 1110 |
Parties | Dorothy SHEPHERD v. SUMMIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Samuel Fisher and Robbie Steele Martin of Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Richard E. Smith, Deborah Alley Smith, and R. Brett Adair of Rives & Peterson, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Dorothy Shepherd sued her employer, Summit Management Company, Inc.("Summit"), on April 23, 1996.She alleged that Summit had discriminated against her on the basis of her race with respect to various aspects of her employment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5;she also alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981and1981A, and she stated a state-law claim alleging the tort of outrage.Pursuant to Summit's motion, and after a hearing, the trial court entered a summary judgment for Summit as to all of Shepherd's claims on December 12, 1997.Shepherd appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court's judgment in Shepherd v. Summit Management Co.,726 So.2d 686(Ala.Civ.App.1998).Her subsequent application for rehearing was overruled and her petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama was denied on December 18, 1998.
On December 24, 1997, Summit filed a motion for attorney fees as the prevailing party.On April 13, 1999, after the time for a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States had expired, Summit renewed its motion for attorney fees.The parties entered a joint stipulation on May 26, 1999, that the total amount of Summit's attorney fees, $45,550.59, and the hourly rates of the attorneys for Summit were reasonable.On May 28, 1999, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered the following order on the circuit court's case action summary sheet:
Shepherd appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama; that court transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12-2-7,Ala.Code 1975.
With respect to the facts surrounding Shepherd's claims, we quote from our opinion on appeal from the summary judgment on those claims:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
McCarron v. McCarron
...opinion by Justice Shaw and a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Cobb. The denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari does not establish any binding legal authority as to the merits of the underlying appeal.
Shepherd v. Summit Mgmt. Co., 794 So.2d 1110, 1116 (Ala.Civ.App.2000). The husband also cites Buchanan v. Buchanan, 936 So.2d 1084, 1087 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), in support of his argument. That case does not, however, support the argument made by the husband that his ownership... -
Johnson v. City of Mobile
...EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978), applies in assessing attorney fees under the ADA. The circuit court in the present case determined that Johnson's claims were “ ‘frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.’ ” In
Shepherd, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals stated:“Standards for assessing whether a federal civil-rights claim is frivolous, under the principles of Christiansburg, were set out in Sullivan v. School Board of Pinellas County, 773 F.2dCir.1981) ]. While these general guidelines can be discerned from the case law, they are general guidelines only, not hard and fast rules. Determinations regarding frivolity are to be made on a case-by-case basis.’“773 F.2d at 1189.” 794 So.2d at 1116.On appeal, Johnson argues that her claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless because, she says, her case was not decided in the City's favor on a motion for a summary judgment. As set forth above, the circuittrial court] abused its discretion.” Turner v. Sungard Bus. Sys., Inc., 91 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir.1996) (citing Sullivan v. School Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 773 F.2d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir.1985) ). In Shepherd v. Summit Management Co., 794 So.2d 1110, 1115 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals set forth the following applicable standard for reviewing a trial court's award of attorney fees in a Title VII case:“The trial court's authority awarding attorney... -
Ex Parte Montgomery County Dhr
...Ficquette and Brooks presented competent evidence in support of the motion to remove the guardian ad litem. Therefore, we conclude that the motion was not frivolous. See, e.g.,
Shepherd v. Summit Mgmt. Co., 794 So.2d 1110, 1116 (Ala.Civ. App.2000). Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the motion was repetitive, i.e., based on the same set of facts as a prior motion filed in that case.4 See, e.g., Brakke v. Rudnick, 409 N.W.2d 326, 335 (N.D.1987). Finally,...