Legal Opinion
Richardson v. Tex-Tube Co.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided February 10, 2012No. Civil Action No. H-09-2245PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT
DAVID HITTNER, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Document No. 32). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that Defendant’s motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
/. BACKGROUND
This is a case arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff Milton Richardson, Jr. (“Richardson”) is an employee of Defendant Tex-Tube Company (“Tex-Tube”). On February 8, 2008, Richardson was terminated by Tex-Tube. This termination…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Fairmont Specialty Insurance Co. v. ApodacaDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2017
- Brown v. City of DunwoodyDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2015
- Chamberlain v. Waller County Asphalt Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2023
- Hall v. Arkema IncDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2020
- Jaraysi v. City of MariettaDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2014
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.