holding that, in spite of Appellant’s claim that Appellees’ itemized Westlaw searches included topics unrelated to the case, such search activity was reimbursable
How later courts described this case
- holding that, in spite of Appellant’s claim that Appellees’ itemized Westlaw searches included topics unrelated to the case, such search activity was reimbursable
- identifying the plaintiffs’ claims as including a request for a declaratory judgment construing the respective rights and obligations of the parties under the PACT contracts and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of rights guaranteed by various provisions of the United States Constitution
- affirming order approving class action settlement which included a service award to each class representative and noting that “[s]uch awards are commonplace in class action cases.”
- “when the law descends to particulars, the specific provisions must be understood as exceptions to any general rules laid down to the contrary”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LYONS, Special Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur fully in the main opinion. I write specially to endorse that aspect of Justice Shaw’s special concurrence in which he observes that “it is an understatement to say that the amount of the attorney fees awarded in this case is unsettling,” 127 So.3d at 407, yet notes that he is constrained by the limitations imposed on an appellate court by the adversarial system, thereby preventing him from going beyond the materials before the court in order to reach a more palatable result.
If the award of an attorney fee exceeded a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, such as where payment of the fee would be inconsistent with the doctrine of sovereign immunity, this Court could raise the issue on its own motion, notwithstanding that the issue had not been asserted by any of the parties to the appeal. Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. 226, 229 , 250 So.2d 677, 678 (1971). However, the PACT trust funds are clearly not State funds; therefore, no issue of sovereign immunity is presented. See § 16-33C-6(b), Ala.Code 1975 (“The amounts on deposit in the PACT Trust Fund shall not constitute property of the state, and the state may have no claim or interest in them.”).
I, too, am “holding my nose” as I join in upholding the attorney fee, but I do so for the reasons set forth in the main opinion and as amplified by Justice Shaw in his special concurrence. Justice Scalia recently dealt with the circumstance of a judge finding it necessary to uphold a result he or she dislikes. He said: “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” 20 I would soften that criticism to say that such a judge does not adhere to the proper boundaries of appellate review. Nevertheless, I do not like the result I have reached today.
. Tasha Tsiaperas, “Constitution a ‘dead, dead, dead’ document, Scalia tells SMU audience,” Dallas News, January 28, 2013. On the date this opinion was released, the article could be accessed at http://www.dallasnews. com/news/community-news/park-cities/ headlines/2013 0128-supreme-court-justice-scalia-offers-perspective-on-the-law-at-smu-lecture.ece.