Donald R. Stacy v. John D. Williams, Danny E. Cupit, & Laurance R. Mitlin, Intervenors-Appellants v. M. M. Roberts, 446 F.2d 1366 (5th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Donald R. Stacy v. John D. Williams, Danny E. Cupit, & Laurance R. Mitlin, Intervenors-Appellants v. M. M. Roberts, 446 F.2d 1366 (5th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1991 · …based on our panel decision in this case and on stacy v. williams, 446 f.2d 1366 (5th cir.1971) (per curiam), we will follow the petition for rehearing rule stated in the text of this opinion when the commissioner seeks damages for frivolous appeals. ⚠ not in text
53 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sims v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. (ca5, 1991-09-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sims v. Great-West Life Assurance Co.
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Knoblauch II, 752 F.2d at 127 ; see also Seyler v. Seyler, 678 F.2d 29, 30 (5th Cir.1982); Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir.1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sims v. The Great-West Life Assurance Co.
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Knoblauch II, 752 F.2d at 127 ; see also Seyler v. Seyler, 678 F.2d 29, 30 (5th Cir.1982); Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir.1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bilmar Drilling, Inc. v. Ifg Leasing Co., Bilmar Drilling, Inc. v. Ifg Leasing Company
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
In Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir. 1971), we treated such an order as final.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Local Union 670, United Rubber Workers
M.D. Tenn. · 1985 · confidence medium
Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 682 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1107 , 103 S.Ct. 732 , 74 L.Ed.2d 956 (1983) (fee awards in an action for failure to pay maintenance and care integral to the merits); Hairline Creations, Inc. v. Kefalas, 664 F.2d 652, 658 (7th Cir.1981) (fees awarded under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 for bad faith litigation of a trademark claim integrally related to the merits); Wright v. Jackson, 522 F.2d 955, 957-58 (4th Cir. 1975) (fees awarded for obduracy integrally related to the merits); Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir.1971) (fees awarded for …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George T. Knoblauch and Julia Knoblauch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Our opinion on the merits in this case, however, informed the Commissioner that he should request his Rule 38 damages (attorney’s fees “in a case of this nature”) by “timely petition for rehearing.” Cf. Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d at 1367 (motion to alter or amend judgment is proper means for requesting district court to award attorney’s fees as sanction for bad faith, vexatious litigation).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harry J. Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Thus, the considerations that the Supreme Court found controlling in a motion for § 1988 attorney’s fees do not apply here. 8 Cf. Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d at 1367 (per curiam) (a motion for attorney’s fees because of opponent’s bad faith in prolonging litigation is a component of substantive relief, and, therefore, the motion must be made either before judgment or within ten days of judgment as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)). 9 We simply cannot distinguish this case from any other judgment of liability that leaves undetermined the relief as to the amount of damages to which the plai…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morris Obin v. District No. 9 of the International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
8th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Cf. Fox v. Parker, 626 F.2d 351, 352-53 (4th Cir. 1980) (argument urging application of the ten-day provision of Rule 59(e) to motions for attorney’s fees rejected as untimely because raised for first time on appeal); Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir. 1971) (motion to amend bill of costs to allow reasonable attorney’s fees for opponent’s bad-faith pursuit of litigation dismissed as untimely because filed after ten-day period prescribed in rule 59(e)), But see note 5 supra. In Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1980), the Fifth Circuit held that an award of attorne…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Snyder v. Leake
N.D. Miss. · 1980 · confidence medium
Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hirschkop v. Snead
E.D. Va. · 1979 · confidence medium
Wright v. Jackson, 522 F.2d 955, 957 (4th Cir. 1975); Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited "see" Autry v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. dba Ahern Rentals and Sales
W.D. Tex. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir. 1971).
cited Cited "see" Henry Ford Evans, Cross-Appellees v. Harry Bexley, Cross-Appellants
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366, 1367 (5th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited "see" Edwin F. Gordon, Cross-Appellee v. John Heimann, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, Cross-Appellants. Edwin F. Gordon v. John Heimann, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: accord · confidence high
In passing, the court said: While we have found no court of appeals decision concerning whether a request for attorney's fees is "a new or additional claim for relief" under Rule 5, Fifth Circuit cases hold that a request for attorney's fees is not a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) when a statute authorizes a court to grant attorney's fees as costs, Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1980); accord, White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 , 102 S.Ct. 1162 , 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), but is a motion to alter or amend a judgment on an equitable awar…
discussed Cited "see" Gordon v. Heimann
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: accord · confidence high
In passing, the court said: While we have found no court of appeals decision concerning whether a request for attorney’s fees is “a new or additional claim for relief’ under Rule 5, Fifth Circuit cases hold that a request for attorney’s fees is not a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) when a statute authorizes a court to grant attorney’s fees as costs, Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795 (5th Cir.1980); accord, White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 , 102 S.Ct. 1162 , 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), but is a motion to alter or amend a judgment on an equi…
discussed Cited "see" Helen Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada
11th Cir. · 1982 · signal: accord · confidence high
While we have found no court of appeals decision concerning whether a request for attorney’s fees is “a new or additional claim for relief” under Rule 5, Fifth Circuit cases 5 hold that a request for attorney’s fees is not a motion to amend a judgment *1369 under Rule 59(e) when a statute authorizes a court to grant attorney’s fees as costs, Knighton v. Watkins, 616 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1980); accord, White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1162 , 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), but is a motion to alter or amend a judgment on an equitable award based on bad…
cited Cited "see" Hill v. Tennessee Valley Authority
E.D. Tenn. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stacy v. Williams, 446 F.2d 1366 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited "see" Merkey v. Board of Regents of State of Florida
N.D. Fla. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stacy v. Williams, 306 F.Supp. 963, 971 (N.D.Miss. 1969) aff’d 446 F.2d 1366 (5th Cir. 1971); Brooks v. Auburn University, 412 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir.1969); American Civil Liberties Union v. Radford College, supra, 315 F.Supp. at 896 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald R. STACY Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
John D. WILLIAMS Et Al., Defendants-Appellees; Danny E. CUPIT Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Laurance R. Mitlin Et Al., Intervenors-Appellants, v. M. M. ROBERTS Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
29997.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 11, 1971.
446 F.2d 1366
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8579
Douglas C. Wynn, J. Wesley Watkins, III, Eugene M. Bogen, Greenville, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants., A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. of Miss., James E. Rankin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., M. M. Roberts, Special Counsel, Hattiesburg, Miss., William A. Allain, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Miss., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Rives, Thornberry, Clark.
Cited by 36 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appendage to what Chief Judge Brown aptly referred as “the ever-expanding volume of Mississippi speaker ban litigation which culminated in Stacy v. Williams, 1969, N.D. Miss., 306 F.2d Supp. 963.” (Footnotes omitted.) Molpus v. Fortune, 5 Cir. 1970, 432 F.2d 916, 917. See also, Stacy v. Williams, 1970, 312 F.Supp. 742.

The final judgment in Stacy v. Williams 1, reported in 306 F.Supp. 963, was entered on December 1, 1969 and provided “that all costs [of the suit should] be taxed against defendants.” There is, and can be, no contention that the word “costs,” so used, included plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. See Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 1967, 386 U.S. 714, 720, 87 S.Ct. 1404, 18 L.Ed. 2d 475. On December 9, 1969 plaintiffs filed with the District Court Clerk a bill of costs, in which they made no reference to attorneys’ fees. Two months later, on February 11, 1970, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend bill of costs and for allowance of reasonable attorneys’ fees, claiming that the defendants acted in bad faith in the protracted, dilatory litigation. See Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia, 4 Cir. 1963 en banc, 321 F.2d 494, 500. The District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion because of its late filing, saying:

“Rule 59(e) of F.R.Civ.P.3 requires
“3. (e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.
that any motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed not later than 10 days after entry of judgment. That rule is particularly applicable to a motion to alter a judgment to allow attorneys’ fees which were neither asked for before judgment nor mentioned in the judgment. We are not concerned here with correcting a mere clerical mistake in the terms of the judgment, but with the granting of new substantive relief, and the motion, therefore, must comply with Rule 59 (e). Gilroy v. Erie-Lackawanna R. Co., D.C., 44 F.R.D. 3 [,4].”

Stacy v. Williams, N.D. Miss.1970, 50 F.R.D. 52, 54. Compare Glick v. White Motor Co., E.D. Pa.1970, 317 F.Supp. 42, 44, 45.

Nonetheless, the District Court proceeded to consider on its merits the question of whether the defense in the case was maintained in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, and answered that question in the negative. See 50 F.R.D. 55. Without reviewing that question, we hold that the District Court was clearly correct in denying the motion of the plaintiffs because it was served later than 10 days after entry of judgment. As noted by the Second Circuit in Spurgeon v. Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., 1967, 387 F.2d 358, 359, “Rule 6(b) states that this time limitation cannot be enlarged.”

The judgment is

Affirmed.