*1 277 particular product of that one that panel process, e., jury does not i. one Shirley al., Appellants, LEA et larger represent a cross-section v. community popular cannot establish CORPORATION, CONE MILLS discriminatory process, unless com- corporation, Appellee. probative pounded additional with No. 71-1852. proof coincidental a more than that previous panels were sim- Appeals, United States Court of number Fourth Circuit. ilarly United constituted.” States Williams, supra at 531-532. Argued 4, Jan. 1972. Sept. 11, Decided 1972. meet their The defendants failed to have burden. govern
Defendants attack proof
ment’s of the whis value
key stolen exceeded Defendants $100. removing only claim were seen This valued $34.75.
specious objection the fact overlooks seen the defendant Franklin was
placing seven this case on the dock with right jury to infer had a others. responsible for the defendants were eight. generally,
theft of all See May, 553, States v.
1969).
Defendants’ final contention re question
lates to the of coun of waiver police
sel at the time the initial interrogation.
FBI The trial court con hearing presence ducted a outside the jury and found that both defendants voluntarily prior had waived counsel
any interrogation. signed Both waiver
forms to this effect. Franklin acknowl
edged McIntyre this at trial. voluntari ly although questions pre answered he
liminarily said he did not wish to make a statement. The oral state during
ment offered the trial was that McIntyre. in The statement was not
criminating, although presented it was pre rebuttal as inconsistent testimony. assuming
vious Even McIntyre’s Miranda were violat
ed, any impeach statements offered for purposes generally ment are admissible authority
under the Harris v. New York, 643, L. U.S. S.Ct. (1971).
Ed.2d
Judgment affirmed. *2 overly generous,
too low. While not we range conclude that it within the the District Court’s discretion. begun by This action was several alleging black women discrimination employment practices in Ti violation of Rights tle VII of the Civil Act 1964. Judge The District found such discrimi practiced, nation had been and he issued appropriate injunction, an but he denied pay an award of and counsel back fees. Generally affirmed, we held that but we awarded, counsel fees should have been purpose. remanded for that Lea Corporation, Cir., v. Cone Mills 438 F. 2d 86. Court award-
On remand the District $10,000, adequacy ed fees of questioned. which is now by hampered Our review is findings, a circum absence of detailed re contend stance which 52(a), quires Rule F.R. reversal under findings 52(a) require C.P. does Rule in actions fact and conclusions law but, jury, tried in its last sen without a tence, exempts motions “decisions it any mo or 56 or under Rules except 41(b).” provided tion as in Rule sought by motion un The fee award was (k) provisions der the of Title of § “other motions” VII.1 It is of the requirements exempted Rule from 52(a), findings does and the absence (J. Belton, Charlotte, N. Robert C. require no not fact that reversal. The Chambers, Chambers, and LeVonne findings requested District Charlotte, Stein, Ferguson Lanning, & emphasizes Court conclusion. our Greenberg, C.,N. Jack William L. Rabb, might Robinson, New S. discre- and Harriett We have considered a findings City, brief), appellants. tionary York remand detailed but on Judge Stanley. untimely for the death of Greensboro, Brooks, N. Thornton H. upon cannot call him to record his We Foster, McLendon, (C. C. Brim, Brooks, Allen thought processes, another District Daniels, Pierce & Greens- Judge position to no than we inis better C., brief), appellee. boro, N. on reconstruct them. HAYNSWORTH, Judge, Before Chief Judge, YOUNG, WINTER, lawyers are suc Judge. handling experienced District civil cessful and They rights federal courts. eases Judge: HAYNSWORTH, Chief collectively, expended say that, handling attorneys’ There were hours in the case. An fees in this award of them, however, challenged being in New some twelve as civil case is (k). 1. 42 2000e-5 U.S.C.A. § $5,- increased from The fact fees be in Charlotte. and some York Appellate sug- lawyers $10,000. intervention many were so there fixing dupli- of fee awards was amount gests possibility of substantial unusual, strongly within but Duplication is cation effort. hardly it things there, expendi- bounds of reasonableness such indicated “preliminary can be to be it here. said without anal- in a ture interrog- ysis” answers of defendant’s Considering lawyers in the number of *3 atories, preparation a the of hours in 60 volved, duplication of indications of the lawyers’ of reply hours and three brief Judge Stanley’s effort, expression his of preparation in of bill of costs. the a time view that some of the work would rea sonably require actually less time than Judge course, Stanley, had the ad- of spent his the and own observation of vantage of their of observation close product capacity to work and his evalu product. experienced trial An work it, ate we cannot conclude a fee of that ap- he, judge, as how to such knows unreasonably so low to was as reasonably praise effort time and the range beyond of be the his discretion. by lawyers prudently spent in the and Affirmed. preparation presentation of their and cases; appraise to val- knows how the he WINTER, Judge (dissenting): Duplication ef- of ue of their services. may suspect deciding hampered could in we We are ease fort which this very apparent findings him. Indeed by by to have been the absence of the de thought computa- judge coupled the the know he ceased district unreasonably high, my of of tion the fact death. I share his While disclaiming any thought misrep- of respect brothers’ evident admiration and after anyone, Judge part Stanley’s as experi on of resentation the abilities and Bench, high we, quality per he remarked from the do ence and the of just think items I judicial duties, “some of these I formance of neverthe long.” less, wouldn’t take am the constrained to conclude that “clearly fixed case was fee this allowance “[T]he Anglin wrong.” United & States v. Judge “is said, has fees” Murrah as (10 622, Stevenson, 145 F.2d 630 Cir. judicial trial discretion of the within the 844, den., 1944), 65 cert. 324 U.S. S.Ct. judge, knowl and intimate who has close 678, (1945). 1405 89 L.Ed. edge expended and the of the efforts And an services rendered. value the I appellate is over court not warranted preliminary matter, I have seri- As turning judgment un the court’s trial F.R.Civ.P., 52(a), ous doubts that Rule circum and less under all facts findings require fact and not does wrong.” clearly stances it is by the district court conclusions law Cir., Anglin Stevenson, 10 & States v. notwithstanding case, the in this 622, 630, 145 cert. denied 324 U.S. judgment payment fees of counsel 844, 678, 65 S.Ct. 89 1405. See L.Ed. requested by motion. other- was Stated Cir., also, Cappel Adams, 434 F.2d v. 5 wise, language view I to the am inclined 1278, 1280. 52(a), exempting Rule decisions of types the The find- find some comfort certain motions from ings Courtesy Chevrolet, re- fact conclusions of law Inc. v. Tennessee rule, Walking inapplicable quirements Horse Breeders’ and Exhibi- the sought Cir., money Ass’n, here. was was a tors’ 9 F.2d 75. That What 393 judgment. uncomplicated There to not was a contest as antitrust ease legal attorneys plaintiff’s services of hours of which had number proper expended 2,289 hours, necessary were four times to here. the rate at which were be com- number hours claimed judgment Although Appeals pensated. Court directed award that an appear claimed, “I don’t think items time sought motion, the case would by anybody connected with the analogous any contested there is to be deliberately findings fact that would non-jury case where action anything, required misrepresent some of but of law are and conclusions just take the merits. these I think wouldn’t decided on items is when long.” 52(a), spirit Defendant asserted that Hence, of Rule within findings ex- letter, hours claimed were of fact hours of not its cessive, all of did not contend that the district court but it lawof conclusions required. See disallowed. been the 128 hours should be seem have would Corporation Similarly, majority of the view v. Nor is Horizons Titanium duplicating, it but Company, 290 F.2d that 103 hours ton suggest 1961); all of the Practice does not Moore’s Federal 5A ¶ Miller, Wright defend- (1971 Ed.); hours should If be excluded. 52.08 to be excessive Procedure 2575 ant’s 128 hours asserted Practice and § Federal Westley totally disallowed, (1971 Ed.). district are p. Cf. *4 plaintiffs’ Railway Co., judge’s award meant that at- Southern compensated torneys 1957). were the rate of at per hour their for services. $25.84 point and re- the not decide I would findings, Giving apparent of effect to the view for Judge further the case mand judge Stanley un- has the district that the total number however, because efficiency compensation for was of hours fortunately died. Judicial that, excessive, the if it con- well as is claimed seem to dictate would ap- points judge majority out exceeded which the the district items cluded fee, pro- pear fixing duplications, dis- to contain I would in the discretion the case hours hours claimed. determination of allow 64 to a final the ceed Thus, for 451 present we are as I would make an allowance on the record because judge who hours. to make it as a district able no who has had is to the case and new In the Middle District North Caro- knowledge previous tran- of what has lina, suggested the bar association’s
spired. per hour for routine minimum fee is $30 stand-by work, office travel time and (only time in court 6 hours II claim) per for all other and hour $35 why think The reasons I the district Certainly, this must be the be- services. judge discretion, exceeded his ginning point fixing com- the rate of allow, fee would and the amount I pensation But other fac- in this case. reasons therefore follow: The main action tors are relevant: requested Plaintiffs an award of legislation involving nov- under new They $29,640. claimed that hours el substan- Plaintiffs achieved issues. litigation spent in had been their ef- tial success from compen- and these hours should be They will forts. made new law which per sated at the rate of hour for $40 persons. many other affect the conferences with and certain thoroughly novelty the issues types of office work and at the rate of bringing from more counsel warranted per appearances for court hour $60 metropolitan sophisticated areas types of services. The district prevailing of fees are schedules where judge $10,000 which, plain- allowed in the remunerative than those more tiffs’ claim a total hours of 515 is ac- Considering all Middle District. cepted, plaintiffs’ attorneys means that factors, how counsel do not see these I per were allowed for their hour $19.42 compensated less fairly a rate be can services. per this hour. Measured than $40 allowing $10,000, judge’s judge rate, In con- allowance the district district remarked, respect because stituted an abuse of discretion some compensated have been would counsel services, there only 250 hours record, party nothing no is asserted, counsel’s has com- services
claimed 515
pensable. proper
If what I think is minimum applied prop- I think
rate is what is base, resulting figure $22,040.
er is
But record reflects the time fees,
spent preparing claim
litigating claim, litigating this
appeal have not in the been included would, therefore,
claim. I direct a total
allowance of for all services to litigation.
the termination respectfully
I dissent. *5 CO., Appellee,
BUTTES GAS & OIL CO.,
The WILLARD PEASE DRILLING Appellant.
No. 72-1106. Appeals, States Court of
Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 1972. Denver, Huekeby, Colo.
Richard M. Junction, Uhrlaub, (Jerry Grand W. brief), appellant. Colo., with him on (Ray- Gengler, Denver, Ted J. Colo. Colo., Denver, Gengler, mond J. on-brief), appellee. him Judge, LEWIS, Chief Before MeWILLIAMS, SETH Judges. Judge. SETH, Circuit brought opera- by the This action was agreement contemplat- under a unit tor gas development ing oil The defendant was area Utah. an working party owner interest