Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Melissa MIGIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. PEARLE VISION, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided March 10, 1998No. 96-11406Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRhesa Hawkins Barksdale, Circuit Judge
Let Us ConsideR The Reason Of The Case. Fok Nothing Is Law That Is Not Reason.
Sir John Powell, Lord Raymond’s Reports (1765) vol. 2, p. 911.
In truth, the issues in this case are quite unextraordinary; the majority has disposed of them most efficiently. On the surface, for a case of this type, this is as it should be. This is especially true for the attorney’s fee question, which, as is well-established, should not result in a second litigation and take more time and effort (and paper) than the litigation on the merits. So, on the surface, all is well.
But, lurking beneath this placid surface…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.