# Jeffers v. Clinton

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · October 24, 1991 · 776 F. Supp. 465

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756265

## Case

- **Full name:** M.C. JEFFERS, AI Porter, Evangeline Brown, Clyde Collins, O.C. Duffy, Earl Foster, the Rev. Ellihue Gaylord, Shirley M. Harvell, Linda Shelby, J.C. Jeffries, Lavester McDonald, Joseph Perry, Clinton Richardson, T.E. Patterson, Earnest Simpson, Brian Smith, and Charlie Statewright, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bill CLINTON, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Arkansas and Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; W.J. McCuen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Arkansas and Member of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment; And Steve Clark, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arkansas and Member of the Arkansas Board of Apportionment, Defendants
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 24, 1991
- **Citations:** 776 F. Supp. 465; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15430; 1991 WL 215458
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eisele
- **Judges:** Arnold, Eisele, Howard
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756265

## Opinion text

EISELE, Senior District Judge, dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority that Plaintiffs’ lead attorneys did a first rate professional job in the representation of their clients in this voting rights case, I, nevertheless, dissent from the fee award because I find it clearly excessive. In my view too many lawyers and too many paralegals were used; the hourly rates awarded are too high and the number of hours allowed excessive. Furthermore, I do not believe, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that any contingency enhancement is called for. I recognize we are dealing here with matters of judgment so I see little benefit in setting forth my specific objections.
Without going into details, the award which I would have approved would be somewhat less than one-half of the award actually made by the Court to the Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties.
APPENDIX A — PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST 4
I. TIME
A. Attorneys
[[Image here]]
B. Paralegals
[[Image here]]
*476 [[Image here]]
II. EXPENSES
A. Paid By the Legal Defense Fund
[[Image here]]
B. Paid by Individuals
[[Image here]]
TOTAL = $166,831
APPENDIX B — ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AWARDED
I. TIME
A. Attorneys
[[Image here]]
B. Paralegals
[[Image here]]
II. EXPENSES
A. Paid By The Legal Defense Fund
[[Image here]]
B. Paid By Individuals
[[Image here]]
*477 [[Image here]]
III. FINAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AWARD
[[Image here]]
. All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756265. Public record. Not legal advice.