Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Nazareth Gates v. John Collier, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary

636 F.2d 942

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-03-26
Topic
general

ON APPELLEES’ PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE PANEL Before BROWN, HILL and RANDALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The majority, for reasons set forth in Judge Hill’s dissent, 1 is now convinced that it was in error in distinguishing between *943 so-called out of pocket costs, on the one hand, and attorney’s fees on the other. 2 The result is that, while the Court remains divided on whether Carpa has to be overruled 3 to permit interest on attorneys fees all are in agreement that out of pocket costs and attorneys’ fees, now including all court costs, are to be treated alike with respect to interest. Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing by the panel is accordingly granted. 1 . “Although I am of the opinion that Carpa [Carpa, Inc. v. Ward Foods, Inc., 567 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir.)] prevents the awarding of interest on out-of-pocket expenses, I must dissent from the majority’s holding disallowing interest on those costs.” 616 F.2d 1268, 1280 (5th Cir. 1980). “The question whether interest should be awarded on out-of-pocket costs is disposed of by the majority all too easily.... ‘firmly established in our jurisprudence’ is the principle that such costs do not bear interest.... simply do not support that statement. There is nothing in any of those opinions to the effect that some costs are interest bearing while others are not.” 616 F.2d at 1282. . .. “There is nothing to suggest that Congress considered attorneys’ fees more important or less important than other litigation expenses .... t…

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nazareth Gates v. John Collier, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
32 opinions
GATES v. COLLIER,636 F.2d 942(5th Cir. 1981)
NAZARETH GATES ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. JOHN COLLIER, SUPERINTENDENT
OF THE MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 79-1844.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 7, 1981.
Rehearing En Banc Denied March 26, 1981.
See641 F.2d 403.
P. Roger Googe, Jr., Peter M. Stockett, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellants.

Carmack M. Blackmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Baton Rouge, La., for amicus curiae State of Louisiana.

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Frank R. Parker, Jackson, Miss., for Gates et al.

Stephen P. Berzon, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
[1] ON APPELLEES' PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE PANEL
Before BROWN, HILL and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[2] The majority, for reasons set forth in Judge Hill's dissent,1is now convinced that it was in error in distinguishing betweenPage 943so-called out of pocket costs, on the one hand, and attorney's fees on the other.2

[3] The result is that, while the Court remains divided on whetherCarpahas to be overruled3to permit interest on attorneys fees all are in agreement that out of pocket costs and attorneys' fees, now including all court costs, are to be treated alike with respect to interest.

[4] Appellees' Petition for Rehearing by the panel is accordingly granted.
  1. "Although I am of the opinion thatCarpa[Carpa, Inc. v.Ward Foods, Inc.,567 F.2d 1316(5th Cir.)] prevents the awarding of interest on out-of-pocket expenses, I must dissent from the majority's holding disallowing interest on those costs."616 F.2d 1268,1280(5th Cir. 1980).

    "The question whether interest should be awarded on out-of-pocket costs is disposed of by the majority all too easily. . . . `firmly established in our jurisprudence' is the principle that such costs do not bear interest. . . . simply do not support that statement. There is nothing in any of those opinions to the effect that some costs are interest bearing while others are not."

    . . . "There is nothing to suggest that Congress considered attorneys' fees more important or less important than other litigation expenses. . . . there is more reason to allow interest on out-of-pocket expenses than on attorneys' fees."616 F.2d at 1282.

    . . . "Were I not of the opinion thatCarpaprevents us from allowing interest on any part of costs, I would not hesitate to hold that these plaintiffs should have interest on their out-of-pocket costs."616 F.2d at 1282-83.

    . . . "As noted above, most federal courts have found no barrier to awarding interest on costs."616 F.2d at 1283. ↩
  2. See p. 1279 and n. 17. ↩
  3. This issue is the subject of appellants' Petition for Rehearing En Banc now pending before the full Court. ↩