From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Evans v. Safeway Stores, Incorporated

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 29, 1980
623 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1980)

Summary

holding district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under Rule 41(d)

Summary of this case from Kent v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Opinion

No. 80-1271.

Submitted August 22, 1980.

Decided August 29, 1980.

Woodson D. Walker, Chinula Walker, P. A., Little Rock, Ark., filed brief for appellant.

Appellee did not file brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.



The sole issue on this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding $200 attorney fees to defendant-appellee pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) and (d) when plaintiff-appellant filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of her tort action. We affirm.

On September 26, 1977, plaintiff filed a complaint in tort for injuries sustained upon defendant's premises. Approximately sixteen months later she filed a motion for continuance of the trial date of 120 days or in the alternative for a voluntary dismissal. The court ordered the complaint dismissed without prejudice.

On April 6, 1979, plaintiff re-filed her complaint. Thereafter defendant filed a motion for attorney fees and for costs incurred in preparation for the trial on the first complaint. After considering the motion and affidavit in support thereof and plaintiff's opposition thereto, the district court awarded defendant-appellee $200 as an allowance for preparation in the initial cause.

We are satisfied the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant-appellee $200 attorney fees. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(d); Johnston v. Cartwright, 355 F.2d 32, 40 (8th Cir. 1966).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Evans v. Safeway Stores, Incorporated

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 29, 1980
623 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1980)

holding district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under Rule 41(d)

Summary of this case from Kent v. Bank of Am., N.A.

holding without analysis that "the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant-appellee $200 attorney fees" under Rule 41(d)

Summary of this case from Uniloc U.S., Inc. v. Blackboard, Inc.

holding that "the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant-appellee $200 attorney fees."

Summary of this case from Wise v. HSBC Mortg. Corp.

upholding a district court award of attorneys' fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(d)

Summary of this case from Hayes v. Bank of America

affirming an award of attorney fees under Rule 41(d)

Summary of this case from Dammeier v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

affirming a Rule 41(d) award of attorney's fees without substantive discussion

Summary of this case from TM, LLC v. Anderson

affirming an award of attorney's fees under Rule 41(d) without discussion

Summary of this case from Copeland v. Hussmann Corp.

affirming award of $200.00 in attorneys' fees under Rule 41(d) without substantial discussion

Summary of this case from Esquivel v. Arau

In Evans, the district court awarded $200.00 for "attorney's" fees to the defendant after the plaintiff moved to dismiss her complaint without prejudice sixteen months after filing suit and then proceeded to refile the complaint.

Summary of this case from Civco Medical Instruments Co. v. Protek Medical Products
Case details for

Evans v. Safeway Stores, Incorporated

Case Details

Full title:ALMA W. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, APPELLEE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Aug 29, 1980

Citations

623 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1980)

Citing Cases

Wishneski v. Old Republic Insurance Company

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are promulgated under the authority of the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. §…

Civco Medical Instruments Co. v. Protek Medical Products

Protek asserts that attorney fees are considered costs under Rule 41(d) in the Eighth Circuit. See Behrle v.…