Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Belcastro-Gonzalez v. City of Omaha (ned, 2023-02-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Belcastro-Gonzalez v. City of Omaha
D. Neb. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Fees may be recovered for ‘research or investigation done in connection with’ a related proceeding, to the extent it ‘proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights’ action.” McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir. 1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Holzmann
D.D.C. · 2008 · confidence medium
Op. & Order of Mar. 20, 2007[738] at 1-2.) [35] See also Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965 , 971-72 (9th Cir.2003) (work in separate case was compensable because it was "important to the preservation of the[se][] Plaintiffs' rights, and because their counsel performed the work in order to protect their interests"); McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir. 1988) (services rendered in prior habeas action making same claims were compensable because work in "habeas action `obviated the need for comparable work in' this proceeding, and `contributed directly to [its] successful outcome'"…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Holzmann
D.C. Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See also Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 971-72 (9th Cir.2003) (work in separate case was compensable because it was "important to the preservation of the[se][] Plaintiffs’ rights, and because their counsel performed the work in order to protect their interests”); McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir.1988) (services rendered in pri- or habeas action making same claims were compensable because work in “habeas action 'obviated the need for comparable work in’ this proceeding, and 'contributed directly to [its] successful outcome' ") (quoting Webb v. County Bd. of Educ.,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schlimgen v. City of Rapid City
D.S.D. · 2000 · confidence medium
McDonald, 860 F.2d at 1462 (quoting Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984)). [¶ 44] Evaluating the facts in favor of the nonmovant Schlimgen, summary judgment in favor of Rapid City is not appropriate on the issue of attorney’s fees.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Victoria L. Bradshaw, an Individual, in Her Capacity as Labor Commissioner of the State of California Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., Director Daniel Dellarocca, an Individual, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Roger Miller, an Individual in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Rosa Frazier, an Individual in Her Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California, G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Victoria L. Bradshaw, an Individual, in Her Official Capacity as Labor Commissioner of the State of California Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., an Individual, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California Daniel Dellarocca, an Individual, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Roger Miller, an Individual in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Rosa Frazier, an Individual, in Her Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, an Agency of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, an Agency of the State of California
9th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In addition, the Eighth Circuit briefly addressed a similar situation in Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984), an action by picketers against municipal officials for violation of their civil rights.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw
9th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In addition, the Eighth Circuit briefly addressed a similar situation in Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984), an action by picketers against municipal officials for violation of their civil rights.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw
9th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In addition, the Eighth Circuit briefly ad dressed a similar situation in Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984), an action by picketers against municipal officials for violation of their civil rights.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7080, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 895, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1223, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9797 G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Victoria L. Bradshaw, an Individual, in Her Capacity as Labor Commissioner of the State of California Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., Director Daniel Dellarocca, an Individual, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Roger Miller, an Individual in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Rosa Frazier, an Individual in Her Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California, G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Victoria L. Bradshaw, an Individual, in Her Official Capacity as Labor Commissioner of the State of California Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., an Individual, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California Daniel Dellarocca, an Individual, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Roger Miller, an Individual in His Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Rosa Frazier, an Individual, in Her Official Capacity as Deputy Labor Commissioner of the State of California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, an Agency of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, an Agency of the State of California
9th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In addition, the Eighth Circuit briefly addressed a similar situation in Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984), an action by picketers against municipal officials for violation of their civil rights.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Oakland v. McCullough
Cal. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
(Cf. Perkins v. Cross (8th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 [fees held recoverable for prosecution of civil rights actions to the extent that research or investigation “proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution” of those actions].) Such causal connection exists here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stacy v. Stroud
S.D.W. Va · 1993 · confidence medium
Lower courts have held that fees may be recovered for work done in connection with a related proceeding to the extent that it “‘proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights’ action.” McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jean BOBBITT, Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT CAP MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee
8th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
An attorney’s work done in connection with administrative proceedings is compensable under § 2000e-5(k) if the work product from the administrative proceedings was “both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it reached before settlement.” See Webb v. Dyer County Board of Education, 471 U.S. 234, 243 , 105 S.Ct. 1923, 1928-29 , 85 L.Ed.2d 233 (1985) (Webb) (denial of an attorney’s fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ). “[T]his Circuit has said that fees may be recovered for ‘research or investigation done in connection with’ a…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Samuel L. McDonald Gerald M. Smith Rayfield Newlon Thomas Battle Alan J. Bannister, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Bill Armontrout Lee Roy Black Donald W. Wyrick John D. Ashcroft, Samuel L. McDonald Gerald M. Smith Rayfield Newlon Thomas Battle Alan J. Bannister, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Bill Armontrout Lee Roy Black Donald W. Wyrick John D. Ashcroft
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McDonald v. Armontrout
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Schneider v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico
1st Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984) (remanded for findings regarding "extent, if any, that research or investigation done in connection with” prior municipal court criminal defense proved directly relevant to subsequent § 1983 action); McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir.1988) ("research and investigation” done for one plaintiff’s habeas petition prior to instant § 1983 action protesting prison conditions " ‘obviated the need for comparable work’ in this proceeding”); Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 474 (3d Cir.1992) (hours expe…
discussed Cited "see" Robert E. Schneider, Jr. v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico Robert E. Schneider, Jr. v. Secretaries of Justice and Treasury of Puerto Rico, Robert E. Schneider, Jr. v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico, Fundacion Colegio De Abogados, Robert E. Schneider, Jr. v. Colegio De Abogados De Puerto Rico
1st Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir. 1984) (remanded for findings regarding "extent, if any, that research or investigation done in connection with" prior municipal court criminal defense proved directly relevant to subsequent § 1983 action); McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir. 1988) ("research and investigation" done for one plaintiff's habeas petition prior to instant § 1983 action protesting prison conditions "'obviated the need for comparable work' in this proceeding"); Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 474 (3d Cir. 1992) (hours expended on op…
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Schiff (2×)
R.I. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984); Jordan v. Dorsey, 587 F.Supp. 282, 287 (E.D.Pa.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Pontarelli v. Stone (2×)
D.R.I. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984); Jordan v. Dorsey, 587 F.Supp. 282, 287 (E.D.Pa.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Fletcher v. O'DONNELL
E.D. Pa. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) *430 (§ 1988; fees in earlier criminal case recoverable where research or investigation done for it proved directly relevant in civil rights action).
cited Cited "see" Orshan v. MacChiarola
E.D.N.Y · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam). 3 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bench Billboard Co. v. City of Toledo
N.D. Ohio · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1462 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984)); Craig v. Christ, 1999 WL 1059704 (D.Ind.1999) ("excludfing] only those entries that appear to be devoted exclusively to the criminal case.”); Fletcher v. O’Donnell, 729 F.Supp. 422, 429-30 (E.D.Pa.1990) (allowing § 1988 fees for a portion of the state criminal trial because the attorney could have billed for reviewing the trial transcript).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Phelps v. Hamilton
D. Kan. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Perkins v. Cross, 728 F.2d 1099, 1100 (8th Cir.1984) (§ 1988 fees can be awarded for research and investigation performed for the state criminal proceeding “which proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights claims”); Cerva v. E.B.R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rev. P.L. Perkins, Rev. C.W. Gilcreast, Will Colier, Will Rodgers, Betty Jakes and Jessie Jakes
v.
James T. Cross, Clyde Murphy, Ed Werne, Charles Weaver, Bill Chapman and Bob Chisnoll
83-1732.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 1, 1984.
728 F.2d 1099
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

728 F.2d 1099

Rev. P.L. PERKINS, Rev. C.W. Gilcreast, Will Colier, Will
Rodgers, Betty Jakes and Jessie Jakes, Appellants,
v.
James T. CROSS, Clyde Murphy, Ed Werne, Charles Weaver, Bill
Chapman and Bob Chisnoll, Appellees.

No. 83-1732.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 1984.
Decided March 1, 1984.

Kaplan, Hollingsworth, & Brewer, P.A., Little Rock, Ark., L.T. Simes, West Helena, Ark., for appellants.

Ralph C. Murray, City Atty., West Helena, Ark., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

The appellants appeal from the district court's order, 562 F.Supp. 85, awarding them $1,500 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, rather than the $43,218.50 they requested.

2

In December 1977, West Helena, Arkansas police officers arrested the six appellants and others who were present at the picketing of a business place. The six appellants were tried in West Helena Municipal Court on charges of impeding traffic, but only one was convicted.

3

Thereafter the six appellants sued various West Helena officials under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983, and 1985, alleging that their arrests violated their constitutional rights. The district court awarded two of the appellants $100 each in nominal damages, but dismissed their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, and all the claims of the other four appellants.

4

The appellants then sought attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, which authorizes discretionary fee awards to prevailing parties in actions to enforce various federal civil rights statutes. The appellants' attorney submitted an affidavit itemizing the 557.58 hours he claimed to have spent representing the appellants both in the original municipal court proceedings and in the later federal civil rights suit. The attorney requested compensation for his efforts at the rate of $75 an hour; the claim thus totalled $43,218.50.

5

The district court, in an order dated April 28, 1983, found the attorney's affidavit "replete with gross exaggerations and outright misstatements." The judge, citing his own extensive trial experience, determined that "the two cases in which plaintiff recovered nominal damages should not have required more than 20 hours of time to prepare and try." Accordingly, he awarded $1,500 in fees (20 hours at $75 an hour).

6

After the district court acted on the fee motion, the Supreme Court announced its decision in a major civil rights attorney's fees case, Hensley v. Eckerhart, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). We think it appropriate to remand this case to the district court for reconsideration of the fees issue in light of the detailed standards set forth in Hensley.

7

On remand, the district court should determine which items in the fee request relate to the prosecution of the successful civil rights claims, and which do not. In particular, we think no award should be made for time the lawyer spent on behalf of the four appellants whose civil rights claims were dismissed. Those four appellants are clearly not "prevailing parties" within the meaning of section 1988. Moreover, no fees should be awarded for any time the lawyer spent defending the appellants in the original municipal court proceeding, except to the extent, if any, that research or investigation done in connection with that proceeding proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights claims of those two appellants who received nominal damages in the district court. In addition, the court on remand should determine, with respect to the two appellants who received nominal damages, which efforts on their behalf related to their claim for damages, on which they prevailed, and which related to the various other claims on which they did not prevail. See Hensley, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 1943. The court should also determine whether the appellants "achieved a level of success that makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for making a fee award." Id.

8

In light of Hensley and this opinion, the attorney should be permitted to file an amended fee statement which appropriately corrects and modifies his previous submission. The district court remains free to reconsider and to allow or disallow various claimed items, based on the modified fee submission and on any response to that submission filed by the defendants.

9

Accordingly, we vacate the existing fee award and remand this case to the district court to allow it to tailor the fee award more closely to the successful results the attorney obtained on behalf of two of the appellants, under the criteria adopted in Hensley. Appellants shall have their costs for this appeal.