HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, AN UNINCORPORATED, NOT-FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
EDWIN MEESE, III, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1986-12-04
No. 84-5679
804 F.2d 1573 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986) Caution
Cited by 40 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

On Petition for Rehearing

At page 1500 of our prior opinion in this case, we discussed the subject of “Fees for Fees.” Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing and the plaintiffs-appellees’ response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the opinion be vacated as to that portion thereof which considers the subject of “Fees for Fees,” but in all other respects the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Under the circumstances of this particular case, we are of the opinion that “fees for fees” should not be allowed.

By reason of this action, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.

On Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc

The suggestion for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759 (11th Cir. 1988)
    …gal issues. Id. Our court has applied these standards in the EAJA context. See Haitian Refugee Center v. Meese, 791 F. 2d 1489, 1495-96 (11th Cir.) (interim EAJA award where plaintiffs prevailed on a central issue), vacated in part on other grounds, 804 F. 2d 1573 (11th Cir.1986); Ray v. Florida Cabinet, 845 F. 2d 311, 313 (11th Cir.1988). Second, our in bane court has held that the mooting of a lawsuit by a defendant’s favorable remedial action does not necessarily deprive a plaintiff of “prevailing party”…
    1 / 2
  • Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …for fees “within thirty days of final judgment in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B): This requirement is jurisdictional in nature, see Haitian Refugee Center v. Meese, 791 F. 2d 1489, 1494 (11th Cir.), vacated in part on other grounds on reh’g, 804 F. 2d 1573 (11th Cir.1986); thus, a claimant’s failure to file an EAJA application within this time constraint precludes a district court from considering the merits of the fee application. United States v. J.H.T., Inc., 872 F. 2d 373 (11th Cir.1989). Second,…
  • Camden I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768 (11th Cir. 1991)
    …f discretion; nevertheless, that standard of review allows us to closely scrutinize questions of law decided by the district court in reaching the fee award. See Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Meese, 791 F. 2d 1489, 1496, vacated in part on other grounds, 804 F. 2d 1573 (11th Cir.1986). See also Skelton v. General Motors Corp., 860 F. 2d 250, 257 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810, 110 S.Ct. 53, 107 L.Ed.2d 22 (1989). According to the now axiomatic American Rule, which was reaffirmed by the United States…

Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw