Notice; Memorandum Order

     [||78184b7a-e94b-41ee-8be7-2f3a0db474e3||] Hon. Peter M. Stockett, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

Post Office Box 220 

Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Re: Norwood v., Harrison, 

Ho. WC 70-53-K 

  

Dear Mr. Stockett: 

This is to formally request when defendants 
1 pay the Judgment of December 4, 1978, zee also, 
randum and Order of December 20, 1978, denying 

fendants' motion to alter or amend. To date, 

iffs have not been paid nor advised as to any 
why payment has not been made. 

n
i
t
 

Pa
] 

on
 Pry 

853 

i 

- 

To
 

6 
BS 

=
0
 

0 
Mh
 

M
e
 0

 
O 

|
 

8
 

0
 

<7
 Q
B
 

wf
 

pa Q KL”
, ] or
 

bo
ge

 

(3
 

¥ finds you well. 

Sincerely, 

Bill lLann Lee 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

cc: Hon, William C. Keady 

Chief Judge 

trict Court for the 

MN. D. Mississippi 

Post Office Drawer 190 

Greenville, Mississippi 38701 

 



Hon. Peter M. Stockett, Jr. 

Page £ 

January 92, 197¢ 

  

cc: Mrs. Katherine Butts 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

s 

N. D. Mi 

ice B 

i 

> 

Oxford, Mississippi 38655 

Hon. Fred IL.. Banks, Jr. 

Banks & Nichols 

538-1/2 Borth Farish Street 

Jackson, Mississippi 39202 

 



aul State of Mississippi 

acy (1 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of the Attorney General 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 

  

A.F. SUMMER PETER M. STOCKETT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL December 22 ’ 1978 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

The Honorable William C. Keady, 

Chief Judge 
United States District Court for the 

Western District of Mississippi 
P. O. Drawer 190 

Greenville, Mississippi 38701 

Re: Delores Norwood, et al., v. D. L. Harrison, et al., 

Civil Action No. WC 70-53-K 
  

Dear Judge Keady: 

Enclosed is original and copy of Defendants' Rebuttal to 
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend 
Judgment. I am sending copy to Bill Lann Lee, Esquire, counsel 
for Plaintiffs, 

With very best wishes. 

Very truly yours, 

Peter M. Stoékett, Jr. 
Assistant Attorney General 

PMS, Jr/ch 

Enclosures 

cc: Bill Lann Lee, Esquire 

 



® ub 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

  

Post OFFICE DRAWER 190 

GREENVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 38701 

WILLIAM C. KEADY December 20, 1978 
CHIEF JUDGE   

Mrs. Katherine Butts 
Chief Deputy Clerk 
United States District Court 
Oxford, Miss. 

  

Re: Delores Norwood v. D. IL. Harrison, Sr. 

No. WC 70-53-K 

Dear Katherine: 

For the jacket file I am enclosing Memorandum Order 
in the above case, which I have today signed. 

Copy is being sent to counsel listed below. 

Yours very truly, 

ty) a - } * . , 

C fy pps / fern 
illiam C. Keady 

WCK/ fg 
Enclosure 

cc: Hon. Bill Lann Lee 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Hon. Peter M. Stockett, Jr. 
Box 220 

Jackson, Miss. 39205 
  

  
  
 



152000 orves retire 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MIissIssIPPI : 

WESTERN DIVISION NOTICE 

OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI 

December 21, 1978 

  

DELORES NORWOOD, ET AL 

V. : NO. WC7053-K 

D. L. HARRISON, SR., ET AL 

TAKE NOTICE that Chief Judge William C. Keady signed the 

Memorandum Order denying defendants motion to alter or amend 

judgment on December 20, 1978. This order has been entered in 

COB 30, Page 217-219. 

NORMAN IL. GILLISPIE, CLERK 

BY iE ( dh ie BT, ca i vv. rn Ro 

Deputy Clerk, Jan J. Estes 

TO: Hon. Bill Lann Lee, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 

Hon. Peter M. Stockett, Jr., Box 220, Jackson, Ms. 39205 

 



  

» » 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

WESTERN DIVISION 

DELORES NQRWOOD, ET AL, Plaintiffs 

V. NO, WC 70-53-K 

D. L,. HARRISON, SR., ET AL, Defendants 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 
  

The court has before it defendants' motion to alter or 

amend judgment entered on Decerbby 4, 1978. This judgment was 

in accordance with our order of February 27, 1978, staying our 

March 2, 1976, award of attorney fees and costs on condition that 

in the event said award was affirmed it should bear interest at 

8% per annum until paid. On March 13, 1978, this court refused 

to amend its February 27 order at defendants' request to delete 

the interest provision. Subsequently, on October 5, the Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed our March 2, 1976 award; 

no mention of interest was made in that opinion, though defendants 

clearly had an opportunity to raise the issue before decision by 

the appellate court. See Norwood v. Harrison, 581 F. 2d 518 (5 

Cir. 1978) (leaving open on remand only the issue of fees incurred 

after March 2, 1976). By their present motion, defendants’ again 

seek to have this court delete the provision for interest on 

attorney fees and costs. We are of the opinion that this attempt 

is not well taken and was settled by the Fifth Circuit's affirmance 

of our award. Moreover, defendants‘ reliance upon Carpa, Inc. V. 

Ward Foods, Inc., 567 F. 24 1316 (5 Cir. 1978), is inappropriate 

inasmuch as that decision involved combination of the attorney 

fees provision applicable under the Clayton Act in which the Fifth 

Circuit specifically stated that their opinion related only to 

construction of the antitrust laws and implied "nothing whatsoever 

 



  

about the propriety of interest on attorney's fees authorized by 

other statutes." Carpa, 567 F, 2d at 1323. More importantly, 

defendants® argument fails to take cognizance of express con- 

gressional recognition of interest on awards of attorneys' fees 

as part of costs under 42 USC § 1988. See 5. Rep. No. 94-1011, 

94th Cong. 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in, [1976] UU, S. Code COng. & 

Admin. News 5913. 

By their present motion, defendants seek deletion of the 

last paragraph of our December 4 judgment by which this court 

retains jurisdiction to issue process against the State Treasurer 

attaching funds appropriated for the Mississippi State Textbook 

Purchasing Board and condemning same for payment of the aforesaid 

amount. In so arguing, defendants rely upon the provision of 

Mississippi law prohibiting payment of a decree against the state 

absent specific legislative appropriation, Miss. Code Ann. 

§ 11-45-5 (1972), and in any event, that the procedure for pay- 

ment by the state must be that prescribed by state law. See, e.g., 

id. § 7-9-9, -9-13. With a mindful eye upon the Supremacy Clause 

of the United States Constitution, we are compelled to disagree. 

The propriety of utilizing Rule 70, F. R. Civ. P., as authority 

for compelling payment of attorney fees against the state was, 

in our opinion, settled in Gates v. Collier, 559 F. 2d 241 (5 Cir. 

1977). Moreover, as Judge Rubin stated in Gary W. v. Louisiana, 

441%. °F. Supp. 1121 (FE. D. La. 1977) {én appeal), in rejecting an 

essentially identical argument urged by the State of Louisiana: 

The court has parsed the state defendants’ 

argument in detail because it is a delicately 

wrought chain of apparent logic that leads to 

‘an ineluctably wrong conclusion. The defendants 

would have the court read the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure in such fashion as to permit 

Louisiana or any other state to ignore a federal 

judgment against it merely by enacting a statute 

prohibiting the garnishment of state funds. If 

 



e @ 

  

the State . . . may be relleved from satisfy- 
ing this judgment by a provision enacted in 
the past, albeit for a different purpose, and 
embedded in the Constitution, then any other 
state may achieve the same result. 

Id. at 1125, 

For the foregoing reasons, it is 

ORDERED 

That defendants' motion to alter or amend is denied. 

This, 20th day of December, 1978. 

Aim Id 
  

Chief Judge re 
United States District Court 

 



  

WiLLiam C. KEADY 
CHIEF JUDGE 

[ 2 STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

Post OFFICE Drawer 190 

GREENVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 38701 

December 20, 1978 

Mrs. Katherine Butts 

Chief Deputy Clerk 
United States District Court 

Oxford, Miss. 

Re: Delores Norwood v. D. 1... Harrison, Sr. 

No. WC 70-53-K 

Dear Katherine: 

For the jacket file I am enclosing Memorandum Order 
in the above case, which I have today signed. 

Copy is being sent to counsel listed below. 

Yours very truly, 

ty } Ho : = ] ; 

dd lira (£/(¢ Evil | 

William C. Keady y 

WCK/fg 

) 

Enclosure 

CC: Hon. Bill Lann Lee 

10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019 

Hon. Peter M. Stockett, Jr. 

Box 220 

Jackson, Miss. 39205 

  

  

  

  

  
 



    

* é 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

WESTERN DIVISION 

DELORES NORWOOD, ET AL, Plaintiffs 

YV. NO, WC 70-53-K 

D. L. HARRISON, SR., ET AL, Defendants 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 
  

The court has before it defendants' motion to alter or 

amend judgment entered on December 4, 1978. This judgment was 

in accordance with our order of February 27, 1978, staying our 

March 2, 1976, award of attorney fees and costs on condition that 

in the event said award was affirmed it should bear interest at 

8% per annum until paid. On March 13, 1978, this court refused 

to amend its February 27 order at defendants' request to delete 

the interest provision. Subsequently, on Oclober 5, the Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed our March 2, 1976 award; 

no mention of interest was made in that opinion, though defendants 

clearly had an opportunity to raise the issue before decision by 

the appellate court. See Norwood v. Harrison, 581 F. 2d 518 (5 

Cir. 1978) (leaving open on remand only chat $ gata of feeg incurred 

after March 2, 1976). By their present motion, defendants’ again 

seek to have this court delete the provision for interest on 

attorney fees and costs. We are of the opinion that this attempt 

is not well taken and was settled by the Fifth Circuit's affirmance 

of our award. Moreover, defendants' reliance upon Carpa, Inc. Vv. 

ward Foods, Inc., 567 F. 24.1316 (5 Cir. 1978), is inappropriate 

inasmuch as that decision involved combination of the attorney 

fees provision applicable under the Clayton Act in which the Fifth 

Circuit specifically stated that their opinion related only to 

construction of the antitrust laws and implied "nothing whatsoever 

 



  
| 
| 

  

* 4 

  

about the propriety of interest on attorney's fees authorized by 

other statutes." Carpa, 567 F, 2d at 1323. More importantly, 

defendants" argument fails to take cognizance of express con- 

gressional recognition of interest on awards of attorneys! fees 

as part of costs under 42 USC § 1988. See S. Rep. No. 94-1011, 

94th Cong. 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in, [1976] U. S. Code Cong. & 

Admin. News 5913. 

By their present motion, defendants seek deletion of the 

last paragraph of our December 4 judgment by which this court 

retains jurisdiction to issue process against the State Treasurer 

attaching funds appropriated for the Mississippi State Textbook 

Purchasing Board and condemning same for payment of the aforesaid 

amount. In so arguing, defendants rely upon the provision of 

Mississippi law prohibiting payment of a decree against the state 

absent specific legislative appropriation, Miss. Code Ann. 

§ 11-45-5 (1972), and in any event, that the procedure for pay- 

ment by the state must be that prescribed by state law. Gee, e.g., 

id. § 7-9-9, -9-13. With a mindful eye upon the Supremacy Clause 

of the United States Constitution, we are compelled to disagree. 

The propriety of utilizing Rule 70, ¥. R. Civ. P., as authority 

for compelling payment of attorney fees against the state was, 

in our opinion, settled in Gates v. Collier, 559 F. 2d 241 {5:Cir., 

1977). Moreover, as Judge Rubin stated in Gary W. v. Louisiana, 

441 'P., Supp. 1121 (BE. D. La. 1977) {on appeal), in rejecting an 

essentially identical argument urged by the State of Louisiana: 

The court has parsed the state defendants’ 

argument in detail because it is a delicately 

wrought chain of apparent logic that leads to 

‘an ineluctably wrong conclusion. The defendants 

would have the court read the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure in such fashion as to permit 

Louisiana or any other state to ignore a federal 

judgment against it merely by enacting a statute 

prohibiting the garnishment of state funds. If 

 



a é 

  

the State . . . may be relieved from satisfy- 

ing this judgment by a provision enacted in 
the past, albeit for a different purpose, and 
embedded in the Constitution, then any other 
state may achieve the same result. 

Ja. at 1125, 

For the foregoing reasons, it is 

ORDERED 

That defendants' motion to alter or amend is denied. 

This, 20th day of December, 1978. 

Ao OL ini > Rad 
  

Chief Judge 
United States District Court 

 



%     
the State . . . may be relieved from satisfy- 

ing this judgment by a provision enacted in 

the past, albeit for a different purpose, and 

embedded in the Constitution, then any other 

state may achieve the same result. 

I4..at 1125, 

For the foregoing reasons, it 1s 

ORDERED 

That defendants' motion to alter or amend is denied. 

This, 20th day of December, 193978. 

Ahn ry 
  Chief Judge er 

United States District Court [||78184b7a-e94b-41ee-8be7-2f3a0db474e3||]