Lee Hardman v. The Bd. of Educ. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist., a Pub. Body Corp. & James Mathews, Superintendent of Schs. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist. Vicki Brown, Elijah Coleman, Robert Morehead, Delma Cotner & Gaylon Presley as Members of the Bd. of Educ. in Their Off. Capacities, Lee Hardman v. The Bd. of Educ. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist., a Pub. Body Corp. & James Mathews, Superintendent of Schs. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist. Vicki Brown Elijah Coleman Robert Morehead, Delma Cotner & Gaylon Presley as Members of the Bd. of Educ. in Their Off. Capacities, 714 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Lee Hardman v. The Bd. of Educ. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist., a Pub. Body Corp. & James Mathews, Superintendent of Schs. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist. Vicki Brown, Elijah Coleman, Robert Morehead, Delma Cotner & Gaylon Presley as Members of the Bd. of Educ. in Their Off. Capacities, Lee Hardman v. The Bd. of Educ. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist., a Pub. Body Corp. & James Mathews, Superintendent of Schs. of the Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist. Vicki Brown Elijah Coleman Robert Morehead, Delma Cotner & Gaylon Presley as Members of the Bd. of Educ. in Their Off. Capacities, 714 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset- Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-R8, Raymond Lozano, Alili Rihkrand, Islebrook at Meadow Woods Homeowners' Association, Inc., Orange County, and Cit Financial, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Dist., 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1983) (internal alterations omitted))); Michael A. Cramer, MAI, SRPA, 6 It would be impossible to list all of the disputes that might require an evidentiary hearing to resolve. 22 Inc. v. U.S., 47 F.3d 379, 383 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[A]n evidentiary hearing is generally preferred, if not required, when factual disputes exist in connection with a request for attorney fees and costs and those disputes cannot be resolved without a hearing.”); King v. McCord, 621 F.2d 205, 206 (5th Cir. 1980) (abuse of discretion for trial court not to hold evidentiary hearing t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) League of Women Voters of MO v. John Ashcroft
8th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
On this record, and given the district court’s “superior understanding of the litigation,” id. (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 ), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs reasonably expended 3,251.38 hours on this matter.2 2 Missouri also asserts that the district court erred in “allow[ing] the hourly rates sought by Plaintiffs’ out-of-state attorneys.” Because Missouri “do[es] not develop [its] argument beyond that single sentence, we hold that [it has] forfeited it.” Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Phipps Group v. Don Downing & Adam Levitt, etc (2×)
8th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
In adjudging Lead Counsel’s request reasonable, the Special Master also discussed the twelve factors for determining attorneys’ fees set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), and adopted by this Court in Hardman v. Board of Education of Dollarway, Arkansas School District, 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jackie Porchay
8th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Dist., 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1983) (quoting Herrera v. Valetine, 653 F.2d 1220 , 1233 (8th Cir. 1981)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Porchay
8th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Dist., 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1983) (quoting Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220, 1233 (8th Cir.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parton v. GTE North, Inc.
W.D. Mo. · 1991 · confidence medium
Hardman v. Board of Education, 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1983) (quoting Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 , 716-17 (5th Cir.1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vaughns v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's County
D. Maryland · 1984 · confidence medium
Neither side has requested oral argument; nor does this court, mindful of Justice Powell’s above-quoted words of caution in Hensley , see any need for the same, see Hardman v. Board of Education of Dollarway, 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1983); Society for Good Will to Retarded Children v. Cuomo, 574 F.Supp. 994, 995-96 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (Weinstein, C.J.) and cases cited therein, although this court would have held a limited, time-controlled evidentiary hearing if either side had expressed a desire, and shown a need, for the same. 8 .
discussed Cited "see" Gopher Oil Co., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California (2×)
D. Minnesota · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hardman v. Bd. of Educ. of Dollarway, Ark., 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1983); McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson, 546 F.Supp. 324, 332 (D.Minn.1982), vacated and remanded in part on other grounds, 722 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see" Ernest C. Williams v. A. Mensey R. Bordeaux J. Simmons v. Vaughn Armstrong W. Pecha St. Louis County Edward M. Moreland William Breeding
8th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hensley v. Eckerhart, [ 461 U.S. 424 ] 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941 [ 76 L.Ed.2d 40 ] (1983) ("the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award. * * * It remains important, however, for the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.”) See also Hardman v. Board of Education of Dollarway, Arkansas School District, 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1983); Freeman v. Franzen, 695 F.2d 485, 494 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, [ 463 U.S. 1214 ] 103 S.Ct. 3553 [ 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 ] (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roger Fires v. Heber Springs School District
8th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although the Hensley Court acknowledged that a district court may consider these factors in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, 461 U.S. at 429 n. 3, 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , it emphasized that “many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. at 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1933 ; see also Hardman v. Bd. of Educ. of Dollarway, 714 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Michael A. Cramer, Mai, Srpa, Inc. v. United States
10th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Builders, Inc. of Philadelphia v. American R. & S. Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 , 169 (3d Cir.1973) (on motion for attorney fees, “[t]he[ ] opposing interests should be afforded a hearing to provide an evidentiary basis for resolution of disputed factual matters and to allow the parties to supplement possibly incomplete statements of opposing parties.”); King v. McCord, 621 F.2d 205, 206 (5th Cir.1980) (abuse of discretion for district court not to hold evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact); Marable v. Walker, 704 F.2d 1219, 1222 (11th Cir.1983) (same); Ross v. Saltmarsh,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lee Hardman
v.
The Board of Education of the Dollarway, Arkansas School District, a Public Body Corporate and James Mathews, Superintendent of Schools of the Dollarway, Arkansas School District Vicki Brown, Elijah Coleman, Robert Morehead, Delma Cotner and Gaylon Presley as Members of the Board of Education in Their Official Capacities, Lee Hardman v. The Board of Education of the Dollarway, Arkansas School District, a Public Body Corporate and James Mathews, Superintendent of Schools of the Dollarway, Arkansas School District Vicki Brown Elijah Coleman Robert Morehead, Delma Cotner and Gaylon Presley as Members of the Board of Education in Their Official Capacities
82-2167.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Aug 17, 1983.
714 F.2d 823
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

714 F.2d 823

32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,771, 13 Ed. Law Rep. 23

Lee HARDMAN, Appellant,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the DOLLARWAY, ARKANSAS SCHOOL
DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate; and James Mathews,
Superintendent of Schools of the Dollarway, Arkansas School
District; Vicki Brown, Elijah Coleman, Robert Morehead,
Delma Cotner and Gaylon Presley as Members of the Board of
Education in their Official Capacities, Appellees.
Lee HARDMAN, Appellee,
v.
The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the DOLLARWAY, ARKANSAS SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a Public Body Corporate; and James Mathews,
Superintendent of Schools of the Dollarway, Arkansas School
District; Vicki Brown; Elijah Coleman; Robert Morehead,
Delma Cotner and Gaylon Presley as Members of the Board of
Education in their official capacities, Appellants.

Nos. 82-2167, 82-2190.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 1983.
Decided Aug. 17, 1983.

Darrell F. Brown, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant/cross-appellee.

Robert V. Light, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees/cross-appellants.

Before BRIGHT, JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, Senior District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM.

[*~823]1

Lee Hardman appeals and the Board of Education of Dollarway, Arkansas cross-appeals from the court's judgment[1] awarding Hardman attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Both parties contend that the district court erred in refusing to grant a hearing on the attorneys' fees award. Moreover, Hardman contends the court abused its discretion and awarded too low a fee.

I. Background

2

From 1975 to 1982, the Board employed Hardman, a black, as an assistant football coach in the local high school. In 1982, the position of head football coach became available. Hardman applied for the position, but the Board voted to hire a white applicant instead. Hardman then brought suit pursuant to Title VII against the Board. Hardman contended that the Board had unlawfully discriminated against him in rejecting his application to be the school's new head football coach and sought injunctive relief. Hardman's suit presented similar issues, the same attorneys for the plaintiff and the same defendants as Cross v. Board of Education, 395 F.Supp. 531 (E.D.Ark.1975).

3

With the agreement of the parties, the district court tried this case on its merits six days after Hardman filed his suit. Testimony in the case began at 9:30 a.m. and concluded the same day at 3:00 p.m. After taking a thirty-minute recess, the district court delivered its findings of fact and conclusions of law from the bench, directing the Board to employ Hardman immediately as football coach. Moreover, the court awarded Hardman costs and attorneys' fees. The court entered its judgment on July 26, 1982.

4

Hardman's attorneys, John Walker and Ralph Washington, submitted affidavits requesting fees of $13,475 and $2,320 respectively. The Board filed a response asserting that the requests, which totalled $15,795, were "clearly exhorbitant." The Board also requested a hearing to present evidence on the issue of what constituted a "reasonable fee." On August 12, 1982, without having held a hearing on the issue, the district court awarded $3,675 to Walker and $870 to Washington.[2] Hardman requested the district court reconsider its order and hold a hearing on the attorneys' fee issue. The district court denied this request. Hardman filed this appeal, and the Board filed a cross-appeal. Both sides contend the district court erred in refusing to grant a hearing on the attorneys' fees issue.[3]

5

II. Discussion.

[*~824]6

The Supreme Court has recently admonished that "[a] request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation." Hensley v. Eckerhart, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The Hensley court also "reemphasize[d] that the district court has discretion in determining the amount of a fee award." Id. The court explained that "[t]his is appropriate in view of the district court's superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters." Id.

7

Our review of the record in this case persuades us that no useful purpose would have been served by holding a hearing on the issue of attorneys' fees. Judge Woods, formerly one of the leading trial lawyers in Arkansas, must be deemed well aware of the attorneys' fees customarily charged by attorneys' performing similar work in the community. His assessment of attorneys' fees is entitled to considerable deference by this court. We recognize that we have held that "[w]hen serious factual disputes surround an application for attorney's fees, a hearing is required." Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220, 1233 (8th Cir.1981). The case at bar, however, presents no serious factual disputes surrounding Hardman's request for attorneys' fees.

8

We also reject Hardman's contention that the district court abused its discretion in making its award. The district court correctly stated that this court has adopted the guidelines for determining attorneys' fees set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974). See Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 788, 554 F.2d 876, 884 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 891, 98 S.Ct. 266, 54 L.Ed.2d 176 (1977). Although the district court did not specifically recite all twelve of the Johnson factors, it did discuss in sufficient detail those factors which it considered relevant to this litigation. The district court fulfilled its responsibility of "provid[ing] a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award." Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 1941.

9

III. Conclusion.

[*~825]10

We have reviewed the district court's determinations and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's award of attorneys' fees.

*

WILLIAM C. HANSON, United States Senior District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

1

The Honorable HENRY WOODS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas

2

In addition to attorneys' fees totalling $4,545, the court awarded reimbursement of costs in the amount of $556

3

In their cross-appeal, defendants originally sought to contest the merits of the case as well as the attorneys' fee issue. Subsequently, the defendants abandoned all of their issues relating to the merits of the case