Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

George Robinson, Jr. v. City of Baton Rouge, 17-30512 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 17-30512 Visitors: 23
Filed: Nov. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-30512 Document: 00514712749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-30512 November 6, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GEORGE W. ROBINSON, JR.; DEMETRA PARSONS ROBINSON Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE Defendants-Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for th
More
Case: 17-30512 Document: 00514712749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-30512 November 6, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GEORGE W. ROBINSON, JR.; DEMETRA PARSONS ROBINSON Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE Defendants-Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:13-CV-375 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After prevailing on a series of motions and, eventually, a jury trial, Defendants-Appellants sought costs and attorneys fees. The trial court exercised its discretion in its Ruling and Order of May 22, 2017, by denying both attorneys fees and costs to the prevailing parties. We have now reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the above-said Ruling and Order of the district court, and we are * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-30512 Document: 00514712749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2018 No. 17-30512 satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion or other error by the district court in its denial of attorneys fees and costs. AFFIRMED. 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