Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Kenneth J. Arenson v. Southern University Law Center

Kenneth J. Arenson v. S. U. (periodical titles) L. Ctr., 53 F.3d 80 (5th Cir. 1995)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1995-05-11
Topic
general

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING (Opinion January 26, 1995, 5th Cir., 43 F.3d 194) Before JONES, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Kenneth J. Arenson petitions this Court on rehearing for a clear ruling on his claim to attorney’s fees, interest on his judgment, and relief based on his Title VII claim. For purposes of clarification, we confirm that Arenson is entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party at trial and on appeal and to interest. We remand to the district court for determination of a reasonable fee and appropriate interest.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Kenneth J. Arenson v. Southern University Law Center. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
ARENSON v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER,53 F.3d 80(5th Cir. 1995)
KENNETH J. ARENSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER,
ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 93-3544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 11, 1995.
Page 81
Harland M. Britz, Toledo, OH, for appellant.

Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, LA, Sandra A. Vuinovich, Normand F. Pizza, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Brook, Morial, Cassibry, Pizza Adcock, New Orleans, LA, for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

[1] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

[2] (Opinion January 26, 1995, 5th Cir.,43 F.3d 194)
Before JONES, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[3] Appellant Kenneth J. Arenson petitions this Court on rehearing for a clear ruling on his claim to attorney's fees, interest on his judgment, and relief based on his Title VII claim. For purposes of clarification, we confirm that Arenson is entitled to attorney's fees as a prevailing party at trial and on appeal and to interest. We remand to the district court for determination of a reasonable fee and appropriate interest. However, Appellant's request for Title VII relief is denied because Arenson waived his Title VII claim by failing to seek a ruling on that issue from theArenson Ipanel.

[4] Except as specifically granted above, Appellant's Petition for Rehearing isDENIED.This case isREMANDEDto the district court for determination of a reasonable attorney's fee and appropriate interest.

[5] ClarificationGRANTED;caseREMANDED.