You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

A. L. McAlister Trucking Co. v. Bhy Trucking Inc.

Citations: 642 F.2d 1000; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14181Docket: 80-1179

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; April 17, 1981; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in the case of A. L. McAlister Trucking Co. v. BHY Trucking Inc. The court deemed the appeal by the defendant-appellant as frivolous and awarded double costs to the plaintiff-appellee under 28 U.S.C. 1912 and Fed. R.App. P. 38. Additionally, based on California law, the appellee is entitled to attorneys' fees for the appeal, referencing T.E.D. Bearing Co. v. Walter E. Heller Co. However, the court decided not to remand the case for a specific determination of these fees. Instead, for the sake of judicial economy, it awarded a flat fee of $1,000 to the appellee for attorney fees on appeal. The ruling was made per curiam by Judges Brown, Wisdom, and Randall, with no further elaboration on the merits of the case.

Legal Issues Addressed

Award of Double Costs under 28 U.S.C. 1912 and Fed. R.App. P. 38

Application: The court determined the defendant-appellant's appeal to be frivolous and thus awarded double costs to the plaintiff-appellee.

Reasoning: The court deemed the appeal by the defendant-appellant as frivolous and awarded double costs to the plaintiff-appellee under 28 U.S.C. 1912 and Fed. R.App. P. 38.

Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees under California Law

Application: The plaintiff-appellee was entitled to attorneys' fees for the appeal, as per California law, referencing a precedent case.

Reasoning: Additionally, based on California law, the appellee is entitled to attorneys' fees for the appeal, referencing T.E.D. Bearing Co. v. Walter E. Heller Co.

Judicial Economy in Awarding Attorney Fees

Application: The court opted not to remand for a specific determination of attorney fees and instead awarded a flat fee to promote judicial efficiency.

Reasoning: However, the court decided not to remand the case for a specific determination of these fees. Instead, for the sake of judicial economy, it awarded a flat fee of $1,000 to the appellee for attorney fees on appeal.