27 Fair empl.prac.cas. 863, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8689 Leona Hudak v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, Patrick D. Kelly, William Anderson, Roger Bern, Guinn Bronson, Norman Crandell, Robert Freilich, Rudolph Heitz, Frederick Hess, Elmer Horseman, Jr., James Jeans, Edwin T. Hood, Robert Popper, John Surlock,lewis Solomon, John Speca, Patricia Batenic, Gary E. Widmar, Wesley Dale, Jamesolson, Marvin Wright, Mrs. Richard Berkmeyer, John Dalton, Irvin Fane, Richardl. Fisher, C. R. Johnston, Pleasant Smith, Wallace R. Stacey, Rex Z. Williams,van o.williams, 586 F.2d 105 (8th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
27 Fair empl.prac.cas. 863, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8689 Leona Hudak v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, Patrick D. Kelly, William Anderson, Roger Bern, Guinn Bronson, Norman Crandell, Robert Freilich, Rudolph Heitz, Frederick Hess, Elmer Horseman, Jr., James Jeans, Edwin T. Hood, Robert Popper, John Surlock,lewis Solomon, John Speca, Patricia Batenic, Gary E. Widmar, Wesley Dale, Jamesolson, Marvin Wright, Mrs. Richard Berkmeyer, John Dalton, Irvin Fane, Richardl. Fisher, C. R. Johnston, Pleasant Smith, Wallace R. Stacey, Rex Z. Williams,van o.williams, 586 F.2d 105 (8th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“control over the details of the litigation thus far indicates that she is able to represent herself”
51 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sharper v. RAMCO- Right Away Maintenance Company (lamd, 2023-02-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Sharper v. RAMCO- Right Away Maintenance Company
M.D. La. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
control over the details of the litigation thus far indicates that she is able to represent herself
examined Cited as authority (rule) Aljoe Poindexter v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
The fourth factor has been mentioned by a number of courts in Title VII cases, Jenkins, 721 F.2d at 880 ("Plaintiff's ability to gather and present crucial facts should be heeded, as should the complexity of the legal issues raised in the complaint."); Hudak v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105, 106 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1799 , 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979); Barnell v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis Inc., 577 F.Supp. 976, 979 (S.D.N.Y.1984), and also in many cases involving the application of 28 U.S.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ronald SLAUGHTER, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Id., 586 F.2d at 106, citing, Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1971).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Payton Randle v. Victor Welding Supply Company and Norman Carlson, Director of Federal Industries (4×)
7th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
The Eighth Circuit in Hudak v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105, 106 (8th Cir. 1978), noted that “the harm [from an erroneous denial of appointment of counsel] can be irreparable on appeal of the final judgment.” The Third Circuit, considering the Supreme Court’s holding in Firestone, expressly found that an order denying appointment of counsel is effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment.
discussed Cited "see" McSean v. Chamberlain
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 586 F.2d 105 , 106 (8th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion for appointment of counsel where it “appear[ed] that the case is one in which a contingent fee arrangement is feasible”); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“It is simply not true that the suits of individuals are generally financed by their personal means.”).
discussed Cited "see" Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co.
D. Neb. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 586 F.2d 105 , 106-07 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1799 , 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979) (feasibility of contingent fee arrangement may be considered in determining whether to appoint counsel); DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir.1991) (same); Cooper, 877 F.2d at 173 (“[i]f the claim is promising and relates to an injury that can be expected to produce substantial damages, a contingency lawyer will often be motivated to take it regardless whether the claimant is indigent or has property”); Hughes, 931 F.2d at 429…
discussed Cited "see" Ray v. Robinson
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Curators of University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105 , 106 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1799 , 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979); Caston v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir. 1977); Spanos v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 470 F.2d 806 , 807 n.3 (3d Cir. 1972); Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 964 , 82 S.Ct. 1592 , 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962).
discussed Cited "see" Ray v. Robinson
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Curators of University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105 , 106 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1799 , 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979); Caston v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 556 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir. 1977); Spanos v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 470 F.2d 806 , 807 n.3 (3d Cir. 1972); Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 964 , 82 S.Ct. 1592 , 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962).
cited Cited "see" E'thelbert Rucker v. City of Saint Louis
8th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105, 106 (8th Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pilak v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
E.D. Mo. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
As for Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show that he is “unable to afford counsel.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1); see also Hudak v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 586 F.2d 105 , 106 (8th Cir. 1978) (affirming denial of motion for appointment of counsel where it “appear[ed] that the case is one in which a contingent fee arrangement is feasible’).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Susan B. CASTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO SPRINGS CABLEVISION, Defendant-Appellee
10th Cir. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Jenkins, 721 F.2d at 880 ; compare Luna, 614 F.2d at 531 ("an industrial worker with only limited ability to speak English” was “ill-suited” to represent himself) with Hudak, 586 F.2d at 106 (when discovery phase already completed, former law professor who had significant control over the details of lawsuit was capable of representing herself).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ver Dell Cox as Debtor in Possession of the Estate of Ver Dell Cox, Etc. v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. (2×)
8th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Hudak v. Curators of University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105 , 106 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1799 , 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allen Hodge v. Police Officers: Colon, 623 and Repuerto, 145
2d Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hudak v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 1799 , 60 L.Ed.2d 247 (1979) (refusal to appoint counsel for indigent former law professor upheld).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hale v. North Little Rock Housing Authority
8th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hudak v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105, 106-07 (8th Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see, e.g." 33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 599, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,942 Brenda Rowe Hale v. North Little Rock Housing Authority David A. Bogard, Attorney Director William Clements
8th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hudak v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 586 F.2d 105, 106-07 (8th Cir.1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
27 Fair empl.prac.cas. 863, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8689 Leona Hudak
v.
Curators of the University of Missouri, Patrick D. Kelly, William Anderson, Roger Bern, Guinn Bronson, Norman Crandell, Robert Freilich, Rudolph Heitz, Frederick Hess, Elmer Horseman, Jr., James Jeans, Edwin T. Hood, Robert Popper, John Surlock,lewis Solomon, John Speca, Patricia Batenic, Gary E. Widmar, Wesley Dale, Jamesolson, Marvin Wright, Mrs. Richard Berkmeyer, John Dalton, Irvin Fane, Richardl. Fisher, C. R. Johnston, Pleasant Smith, Wallace R. Stacey, Rex Z. Williams,van o.williams
78-1310.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 15, 1978.
586 F.2d 105
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: M.D. Louisiana (1)

586 F.2d 105

27 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 863, 18 Empl. Prac.
Dec. P 8689
Leona HUDAK, Appellant,
v.
CURATORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, Patrick D. Kelly,
William Anderson, Roger Bern, Guinn Bronson, Norman
Crandell, Robert Freilich, Rudolph Heitz, Frederick Hess,
Elmer Horseman, Jr., James Jeans, Edwin T. Hood, Robert
Popper, John Surlock,Lewis Solomon, John Speca, Patricia
Batenic, Gary E. Widmar, Wesley Dale, JamesOlson, Marvin
Wright, Mrs. Richard Berkmeyer, John Dalton, Irvin Fane,
RichardL. Fisher, C. R. Johnston, Pleasant Smith, Wallace R.
Stacey, Rex Z. Williams,Van O.Williams, Appellees.

No. 78-1310.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 8, 1978.
Decided Nov. 15, 1978.

Leona M. Hudak, pro se.

Jackson A. Wright, Columbia, Mo., and Robert L. Driscoll of Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers & Fizzell, Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.

Before LAY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~105]1

Leona M. Hudak instituted this suit against the Curators of the University of Missouri, the Dean and certain faculty members of the School of Law, and various other university officials, seeking injunctive relief. A former assistant professor of law at the university, Hudak alleged that termination of her employment, low salary and various acts of harassment were due to discrimination based on her sex, age, religion and ethnic heritage. She claimed violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the first, fourth, fifth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; the Missouri Constitution; and various federal and state statutes.

2

After discovery was nearly complete and three attorneys retained by Hudak had withdrawn, Hudak moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel to represent her under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).[1] The court granted her in forma pauperis status, but declined to appoint counsel. She appeals the denial of counsel, various orders sustaining defendant's objections to certain of her interrogatories and a protective order providing that she return to defendants certain exhibits after their use in the trial and not use them in other cases.

3

The latter two rulings relate to conduct of the trial and to discovery matters, and as such are not appealable as final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, 519 F.2d 595 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied sub nom. Chamber of Commerce v. United Steelworkers, 423 U.S. 1033, 96 S.Ct. 566, 46 L.Ed.2d 407 (1975); Gialde v. Time, Inc., 480 F.2d 1295 (8th Cir. 1973); Childs v. Kaplan, 467 F.2d 628 (8th Cir. 1972).[2]

[*105]4

We have held that denial of appointment of counsel is appealable under28 U.S.C. § 1291 as a final collateral order on the basis that the harm it may cause can be irreparable on appeal of the final judgment. Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971); Cf. Scott v. Chief of Police, 492 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1974).[3] The record reflects here that Hudak is indigent, but it also appears that the case is one in which a contingent fee arrangement is feasible, and three attorneys have previously taken her case. More significantly, Hudak is a lawyer and a former professor of law, with an advanced legal degree. As the district court noted, her control over the details of the litigation thus far indicates that she is able to represent herself. Furthermore, while she is not residing in the forum state, the district court noted that the discovery phase of the lawsuit is already completed.

5

We find under the facts and existing circumstances that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel.

[*~106]6

The order of the district court is affirmed.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) provides: "The court may request an attorney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel and may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious."

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) provides in part: "Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees, costs, or security."

2

Even if the orders were reviewable, we note that the notices of appeal were filed long after expiration of the 30 day period set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice of appeal was filed on April 17, 1978. The discovery orders were entered in January of 1978; the protective order was entered in January of 1977

3

Accord, Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 556 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1977) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5); Spanos v. Penn Central Trans. Co., 470 F.2d 806, 807 n.3 (3d Cir. 1972); Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1961), Cert. denied, 370 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 1592, 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962)