This case involved a claim for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses by plaintiffs who prevailed in a voting rights lawsuit against the City of Indianola and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The underlying dispute concerned the city's annexations, compliance with Voting Rights Act preclearance requirements, and the establishment of municipal election boundaries, which the plaintiffs challenged to protect minority voting rights; the court had previously ruled in plaintiffs' favor on the merits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendants did not contest the award of fees but argued that the requested amounts—$337,689 in fees for seven attorneys and over $37,000 in expenses—were excessive. After applying the Johnson factors to assess reasonableness, including time expended, results obtained, and counsel's experience, the court awarded a lodestar fee of $159,575 and $32,164.37 in recoverable expenses.
This case involves the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service petitioning the court to approve a new performance evaluation instrument (PEI) and procedure for use in determining merit pay increases and promotions for professional employees, following earlier litigation that invalidated a prior racially discriminatory evaluation form. The plaintiff class of black MCES professional employees opposed approval of the PEI. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the PEI was developed through extensive job analysis and interviews in accordance with EEOC guidelines, is objective with defined scoring procedures, and is nondiscriminatory because score differences between racial groups were attributable to education and experience rather than race. The court therefore approved the PEI as a valid additional factor for pay and promotion decisions at county and district levels.
The case involved two black employees of the Mississippi Department of Corrections who sued the agency and its commissioner, alleging racial discrimination in promotion decisions under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and § 1983. Plaintiff Oliver Jones was denied a lieutenant position because he had not yet met the required 1.5 years of experience as a sergeant, while plaintiff John Wilchie challenged the use of an unvalidated oral interview that produced a statistically significant racial disparity in selections. The court dismissed Jones's claims, finding he failed to meet the uniformly applied minimum qualifications and showed no evidence of intentional discrimination. It ruled for Wilchie on his disparate-impact claim, awarding back pay and declaratory relief that the interview process was invalid, but denied reinstatement or broader injunctive relief.
The case involved a black band director suing the Oxford Municipal School District and its officials under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, alleging racial discrimination led to the non-renewal of his contract as high school band director after desegregation. The court ruled for the defendants, denying the plaintiff's claims for back pay, reinstatement, and other relief, and also denying the defendants' request for attorney fees. It found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of disparate treatment but that the defendants articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons—such as declining student participation in the band, poor contest ratings, and issues with organization and discipline—which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. The same analysis applied to bar recovery under the parallel civil rights statutes.
This case involves The Dow Chemical Company suing Halliburton Company and Mississippi Power & Light Company for patent infringement related to chemical processes for cleaning scale from utility boiler tubes. The court determined that certain claims in the Lesinski and Harriman patents were valid, enforceable, and infringed by the defendants, while claims in the Teumac patent were invalid and unenforceable. The reasoning centered on an evidentiary hearing and review of the patents' validity and the defendants' use of similar cleaning methods, leading to findings of infringement on specific claims and dismissal of others. The court awarded damages and issued an injunction against further infringement.
The case concerned a challenge by black voters (the Brooks plaintiffs) to Mississippi's 1981 legislative congressional redistricting plan and the preexisting 1972 plan, brought under section 5 and amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as well as the one-person, one-vote principle of the Constitution. After two evidentiary hearings and appeals, the three-judge court invalidated the plans for diluting black voting strength and ordered into effect a new interim plan creating a Delta district with a 58.3% black population. In the present memorandum opinion the court considers the prevailing plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 1973l(e), together with counter-motions by the Republican defendants seeking their own post-judgment expenses and Rule 11 sanctions.