Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Raymond Kassel, 79-1618 (1982)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number: 79-1618 Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 24, 1982
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 455 U.S. 329 102 S. Ct. 1496 71 L. Ed. 2d 187 CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE v. Raymond KASSEL et al No. 79-1618 Supreme Court of the United States February 23, 1982 On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Justice WHITE, dissenting. 3 We granted certiorari in this case to decide one very narrow question: "May a court, without articulating its rationale, summ
More

455 U.S. 329

102 S. Ct. 1496

71 L. Ed. 2d 187

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
v.
Raymond KASSEL et al

No. 79-1618

Supreme Court of the United States

February 23, 1982

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

PER CURIAM.

1

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

2

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

3

We granted certiorari in this case to decide one very narrow question: "May a court, without articulating its rationale, summarily deny an application for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988?" Petitioner concedes that "not . . . all cases require opinions," Brief for Petitioner 6, n. 6, but argues that with respect to an application for fees under § 1988 "[t]he combination of discretion and a standard for the exercise of that discretion necessitates a statement of reasons to determine whether the decision is proper." Id., at 12. In my view, such an application is not sufficiently distinguishable from numerous other motions and applications that a court may concededly decide without opinion. Whether this is a good or bad method of exercising discretion in a particular case, or even in general, is not at issue in this case. Because I do not believe that there is any per se rule that a court may never summarily deny an application for fees, I would affirm the decision below.

4

Justice O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

5

Accordingly, I dissent from the majority's disposition of this case.

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