Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Arenson v. Southern University Law Center, 93-03544 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 93-03544 Visitors: 16
Filed: May 18, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 93-3544 _ KENNETH J. ARENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana _ (May 11, 1995) On Petition for Rehearing 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, interes
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 93-3544 _______________________ KENNETH J. ARENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana _________________________________________________________________ (May 11, 1995) On Petition for Rehearing 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 * Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well- settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. 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 the Arenson I panel. Except as specifically granted above, Appellant's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the district court for determination of a reasonable attorney's fee and appropriate interest. Clarification GRANTED; case REMANDED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer