CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
v.
KASSEL ET AL.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice White,
dissenting.
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 concedely 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.
Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s disposition of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comm'rs Court of Medina Cnty. v. United States, 683 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1982)…Appellants contend that the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees without formal findings of fact and conclusions of law is plain error. We note that this area is not without controversy. See Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1496, 71 L.Ed.2d 187 (1982) (cert. dismissed as improvidently granted) (White, J., dissenting). This Court has previously held that when attorneys’ fees are awarded, district courts must “adequately articulat[e the] underlying reasons” for the award. Cop…
-
Jones v. The United States, 801 F.2d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1986)…the Quiet Title Act); Loesch v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 34, 645 F. 2d 905, 924 (1981) (statute of limitations applied to Fifth Amendment taking claim), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099, 102 S.Ct. 672, 70 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981), reh’g denied, 455 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 1496, 71 L.Ed.2d 695 (1982). The statute of limitations begins to run, by its terms, when a claim accrues. Generally, an action for breach of fiduciary duty accrues when the trust beneficiary knew or should have known of the breach. Menominee Tribe of I…