noting that an attorney fees order, issued in the form of “a brief memorandum opinion,” did not meet the separate document requirement of Rule 58
How later courts described this case
- noting that an attorney fees order, issued in the form of “a brief memorandum opinion,” did not meet the separate document requirement of Rule 58
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved by John C. Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226 (1984)
See, e.g., Huecker v. Milburn, 538 F.2d 1241 (6th Cir. 1976), overruled on other grounds, Shimman v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 744 F.2d 1226 (6th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985); United States v. Dean, 519 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. 1975); Columbus Coated Fabrics v. Industrial Comm. of Ohio, 498 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1974); Richland Trust Co. v. Federal Ins.
The opinion
EDWARDS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I join in the remand called for by the court’s opinion, since the United States Supreme Court has clearly ruled out award of attorney’s fees on the private attorney general theory in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. The Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). In the light of footnote 44, pages 269-70, 95 S.Ct. 1612 in Alyeska Pipeline, supra, I adhere to my dissent in Taylor v. Perini, 503 F.2d 899, 906 (6th Cir. 1974).