Legal Opinion
Lipscomb v. Columbus Muninicipal Separate School District
District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Decided May 1, 2003No. 1:92 CV 20-D-DPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES
DAVIDSON, Chief Judge.
Presently before the court is the Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. 1 Upon due consideration, the court finds that the motion should be granted, but not in the full amount requested by the Plaintiffs.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
This case’s factual background and the history behind Mississippi’s sixteenth-section lands has already been well documented. See. e.g., Lipscomb v. Columbus Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 269 F.3d 494, 498-99 (5th Cir.2001). 2 In order to avoid needless…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. AgyeiSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tarantino v. City of HornellDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2009
- Toga Society, Inc. v. LeeDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2004
- Benham v. City of Jackson, MississippiDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2022
- Miller v. Management & Training CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2021