Patricia E. McQurter Cross-Appellant v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, Cross-Appellees, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Patricia E. McQurter Cross-Appellant v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, Cross-Appellees, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 · …integral part of the merits of the case ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1988 · …when attorney's fees are similar to costs or collateral to an action, a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits. at p. 882 ✓
72 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player (alacivapp, 2003-07-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player (2×)
Ala. Civ. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
In McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), we held that whether such an order is final depends on whether the issue of attorney's fees is `collateral to an action' or `an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief.' (quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Manuel Gonzales, Tommy Ramos, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Perry A. Rivkind, Robert Adams, and Alan Nelson
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Because a claim for attorney’s fees under section 1988 is collateral to the merits of a case, see White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 451-52 , 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1166-67 , 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees on this ground is collateral to the merits of their action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor (2×)
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), we held that “[w]hen attorney’s fees are similar to costs or collateral to an action, a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits.” (Citations omitted; quoting Holmes v. J.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baldwin v. Bright Mortgage Co.
Colo. · 1988 · confidence medium
Ray McDermott & Co., 682 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1107 , 103 S.Ct. 732 , 74 L.Ed.2d 956 (1983); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miscott Construction Corp. v. Zaremba Walden Co.
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
While in some cases the calculation of attorneys’ fees may be a ministerial duty collateral to the merits of the action, see McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Miscott Corporation
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
To determine the appropriate amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded, the bankruptcy court will need to weigh the evidence, examine the credibility of the various witnesses, and ultimately use its best judgment. 11 While in some cases the calculation of attorneys' fees may be a ministerial duty collateral to the merits of the action, see McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), we held that ”[w]hen attorney’s fees are similar to costs or collateral to an action, a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits.” (Citations omitted; quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mattie Norman, Clara Marshall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Housing Authority of the City of Montgomery
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 451 , 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1166 , 71 L.Ed. 2d 325 (1982) (attorney’s fees issues are collateral to the merits of civil rights actions); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (district court order resolving all *1296 issues except attorney’s fees under section 1988 is final and appealable).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ierna v. Arthur Murray International, Inc.
unknown court · 1987 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774, 775 (11th Cir.1984); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Holmes v. J.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ierna v. Arthur Murray International, Inc.
unknown court · 1987 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774, 775 (11th Cir.1984); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Holmes v. J.
cited Cited as authority (rule) C.L. Taylor, Cross-Appellee v. Texgas Corporation, Cross-Appellant
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774, 775 (11th Cir.1984) (footnote omitted) (quoting McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerry Shelton v. M.P. Ervin and Betty Ervin, D/B/A Ervin's Liquor Store
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
When, however, attorney fees are an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief, the attorney fees issue cannot be characterized as costs, or as collateral, and their determination is a part of any final appealable judgment.” McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Holmes, 682 F.2d at 1146 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beckwith MacHinery Company v. Travelers Indemnity Company (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984); Certain British Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England v. Jet Charter Service, Inc., 739 F.2d 534, 535 (11th Cir.1984); C.I.T.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sidney L. Jaffe v. Sundowner Properties, Inc., Formerly Nortek Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Nortek, Inc., a Rhode Island Corporation (2×)
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rodriguez v. Handy
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Distinguishing McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), the case in which the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Holmes test, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rodriguez v. Handy
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Distinguishing McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), the case in which the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Holmes test, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Francisco Armendaris
11th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
As this court recognized in McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), the issue of whether an order that resolves all issues in a case with the exception of attorney’s fees is a final appealable order depends upon the circumstances of each case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donna Crossman v. Michael MacCoccio
1st Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 682 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.1982) (discussing the three types of attorney’s fees), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1107 , 103 S.Ct. 732 , 74 L.Ed.2d 956 (1983); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (endorsing Holmes).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Interstate Pipe Maintenance, Inc., Etc. v. Fmc Corporation, Etc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (citations omitted) (quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bank South Leasing, Inc., a Georgia Corporation v. James R. Williams and Julius M. Garner, Bank South Leasing, Inc., a Georgia Corporation v. Florida National Bank of Orlando, a National Banking Association, Bank South Leasing, Inc., a Georgia Corporation v. James R. Williams, Julius M. Garner, Florida National Bank of Orlando, a National Banking Association, and Allen G. MacArthur (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
When, however, the attorney's fees are an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief, they cannot be characterized as costs or as collateral and their determination is a part of any final, appealable judgment. 10 McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (citations omitted) (quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bank South Leasing, Inc. v. Williams (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (citations omitted) (quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Harold Daniels and Irene Daniels
7th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
The appealability of an order that leaves fees unresolved “ ‘depends on the circumstances of each case’,” that court concluded. 743 F.2d at 775 , quoting from McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blue Sky L. Rep. P 72,221, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,035 J. Don Foster, an Individual v. Jesup and Lamont Securities Co., Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellee. J. Don Foster, an Individual, Cross-Appellee v. Texas Partners '80 Ltd., a Limited Partnership, Minnick Resources Management, Inc., a Corporation, F. Wendell Minnick, an Individual, Jesup and Lamont Securities Co., Inc., a Corporation, and Pyron Exploration and Drilling Corp., a Corporation, Cross-Appellants
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774 (11th Cir.1984); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Foster v. Jesup & Lamont Securities Co.
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774 (11th Cir.1984); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Certain British Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England, Etc. v. Jet Charter Service, Inc., and Aeroservice International, Inc., Defendants
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
As this court recognized in McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), whether an order that resolves all issues in a case but leaves the award of fees open is a final, appealable order depends on the circumstances: “When attorney’s fees are similar to costs ... or collateral to an action ..., a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles H. FORT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
In McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984), we held that whether such an order is final depends on whether the issue of attorney’s fees is "collateral to an action” or "an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief.” (quoting Holmes v. J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.I.T. Corporation v. Patricia A. Nelson
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
The finality of an order, which determines all the issues except for the award of attorneys’ fees “depends on the circumstances of each case.” 1 McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" Roberto Vasconcelo v. Miami Auto Max, Inc.
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 183 (relying on McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir. 1984), abrogated by Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988), and Holmes v. J.
cited Cited "see" H.R. Ambrose Tessmer v. Rebecca Walker, Individually and in Her Capacity as Property Appraiser of Palm Beach County
11th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" Carter v. Harrison
E.D.N.Y · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See McQurter v. Atlanta, 572 F.Supp. 1401, 1419 (N.D.Ga.1983), appeal dismissed, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley, Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley
5th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., McQurter v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 572 F.Supp. 1401, 1415-16 (N.D.Ga.1983), appeal dismissed, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gilmere v. City Of Atlanta
11th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Georgia has supplied the law. 33 293 F.2d at 409 ; see also McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 572 F.Supp. 1401, 1422-23 (N.D.Ga.1983) (following Carey and applying Sec. 51-4-1(1) in awarding damages under Sec. 1983 to the widow of man killed by police in Georgia), appeal dismissed, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir.1984). 34 The district court in its first opinion stated that if the decedent had been survived by a wife or child, those persons could have sought damages under then Sec. 105-1302, 3 but since the decedent left neither widow nor child, his estate was not entitled to a cause of action and the deced…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gilmere v. City of Atlanta
11th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
Georgia has supplied the law. 293 F.2d at 409 ; see also McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 572 F.Supp. 1401, 1422-23 (N.D.Ga.1983) (following Carey and applying § 51-4-1(1) in awarding damages under § 1983 to the widow of man killed by police in Georgia), appeal dismissed, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Paranteau v. DeVita
Conn. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., McQurter v. Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881 (11th Cir. 1984); Holmes v. J.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patricia E. McQURTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA, Georgia, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees
83-8743.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 19, 1984.
724 F.2d 881
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 26291
Elizabeth J. Appley, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.
Hill, Johnson, Henderson.
Cited by 54 opinions  |  Published
BY THE COURT:

Plaintiff-Appellee Patricia McQurter prevailed at the district court in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Atlanta and the other defendants (collectively referred to as Atlanta). The district court, 572 F.Supp. 1401, entered final judgment on September 12, 1988, and Atlanta did not file its notice of appeal to this court for 31 days, one day beyond the thirty day period of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4. Atlanta did not move, under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5), for the district court to extend its time to appeal. McQurter now moves that this court dismiss Atlanta’s appeal. Atlanta argues that the appeal should be maintained because the district judge on September 12 did not enter judgment on McQurter’s motion under section 1988 for attorney’s fees (and apparently has not done so yet). Atlanta requests that we hold its appeal premature and allow another notice of appeal later to be filed because, absent a decision on attorney’s fees, the September 12 order was not final and ap-pealable. We hold that the order was final and appealable and dismiss Atlanta’s appeal.

The problem apparent in this case has arisen in several other circuits and may be stated as follows: when the district court enters an order resolving all issues presented in a case except the award of attorney’s fees, has a final, appealable order been entered? We need not review the numerous cases dealing with the issue in detail because we believe our sister circuit in Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 682 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir.1982) properly decided that the answer to the question is: “it depends on the circumstances.” In Holmes, the court held that:

When attorney’s fees are similar to costs (White) or collateral to an action (Obin), a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits. When, however, the attorney’s fees are an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief, they cannot be characterized as costs or as collateral and their determination is a part of any final, appealable judgment.

Id. at 1146. As the Holmes court noted, this distinction is in accordance with the holding in White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), in which the Court held that attorney’s fees are collateral and independent when claimed under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and thus not subject to the ten day time limit set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Our own cases are also in accord. See Varnes v. Local 91, 674 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir.1982). Since the Supreme Court has clearly stated that attorney’s fees are collateral in a section 1983 action, it is clear that Atlanta filed its notice of appeal too late.

DISMISSED.