Weiner v. Se. Banking Corp., 51 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Weiner v. Se. Banking Corp., 51 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Reynolds v. Butts (ca11, 2002-11-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. Butts
11th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Litig., 51 F.3d 1003, 1004 (11th Cir.1995) (holding an unnamed class member who did not intervene in the action lacked standing to appeal district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. Butts
11th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Litig., 51 F.3d 1003, 1004 (11th Cir.1995) (holding an unnamed class member who did not intervene in the action lacked standing to appeal district court's order awarding attorney's fees). 10 For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re SOUTHEAST BANKING CORP., SECURITIES LITIGATION. Harvey WEINER, Et Al., a National Banking Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
SOUTHEAST BANKING CORP., Charles J. Zwick, John Porta, G. Dodson Mathias, Paul Hill, Kirsten M. Hudak, Defendants, William A. Brandt, Jr., as Administrator of the Investment Plus Plan of Southeast Banking Corp., Appellant
94-4006.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 9, 1995.
51 F.3d 1003
J. Joseph Bainton, New York City, for appellant., Michael J. Pucillo, Burt & Pucillo, West Palm Beach, FL, for appellees.
Cox, Black, Fay.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises from a class action settled against Southeast Banking Corporation. The district court approved the settlement and was faced with the issue of attomeys’s fees and costs. William A. Brandt, Jr., as administrator of a pension plan for former Southeast Bank employees, objected to the request for attorneys’s fees by class counsel. The district judge overruled the objection and approved attorneys’s fees of twenty-five percent of the settlement. Brandt attempts to appeal that ruling.

Brandt was not a named party. He never moved to intervene in the class action as administrator of the pension plan. Here, he attempts to base standing to appeal on his having objected to the request for attorneys’s fees.

We find that our Circuit’s precedent is clearly established in Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F.2d 626 (11th Cir.1987). Brandt, a non-named class member who failed to intervene, lacks standing to appeal the district court’s order on attorneys’s fees. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.