Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

587 F.2d 841

Docket No. 77-3009.

Mitchell v. Mid-Continent Spring Co.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 9, 1978.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-11-09

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1990

4 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Baker v. United States · Barnes v. United States · United States v. Prujansky

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-11-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Thomas M. Hanna, Clayton, Mo., William E. Scent, Keith, Scent & Osborne, Hopkins-ville, Ky., for defendant-appellant.

¶2James W. Owens, Paducah, Ky., James C. Hickey, Ewen, MacKenzie & Peden, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.

¶4ORDER

¶5No active Judge of this Court having requested that a vote be taken on appellee’s suggestion that her petition for rehearing be heard en banc, the petition for rehearing was referred to the panel for disposition.

¶6Upon consideration, we hereby modify our opinion only in the respect herein stated. After determining the allowance to be made to plaintiff for attorney’s fees in representing her individually, the District Court shall separately determine the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to, and expenses incurred by, the plaintiff in obtaining the injunction and in establishing the illegality of the company’s challenged practices. In making that determination the Court shall consider the amount finally allowed to the class. In other words, if the recovery by the class is in only a small amount, an award such as was previously made by the District Court, could not be supported.

¶7In all other respects, our opinion is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied.

/587/f2d/841 · .json · Public domain