TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lovel Redden v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

Lovel REDDEN, Appellee, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant

Lovel Redden v. Gardner, 391 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 23, 1968
Docket
No. 11711_1
Judges
Sobeloff, Craven, Merhige
Citations
391 F.2d 6701968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7961

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Remanding this Social Security case to the District Court for the awarding of reasonable counsel fees, this court stated: “a reasonable fee for the lawyer, from what he has done thus far would probably lie well within * * * $1750 * * Redden v. Celebrezze, 370 F.2d 373, 376 (4th Cir. 1966). Inexplicably, the District Court awarded claimant’s attorney over $2200 more than the estimated maximum.

We find the award of $3960, only $1.73 less than the statutory maximum of 25% of the claimant's accrued benefits, 1

to be excessive and incompatible with the principles laid down in McKittrick v. Gardner, 378 F.2d 872 (4th Cir. 1967) and the earlier Redden ease, supra, in which we noted, “Routine approval of the statutory maximum allowable fee should be avoided in all cases. In a great majority of cases, perhaps, a reasonable fee will be much less than the statutory maximum.”

The District Court, stating no reasons for its determination, appears to have automatically adopted the statutory maximum. No extraordinary services are indicated and no showing is — or could be— made that the attorney took any substantial action on behalf of the claimant after this court’s decision wherein it was suggested what would constitute fair and reasonable compensation.

Concluding, therefore, that the District Court’s order awarding $3960 to counsel must be modified, we direct the defend *671 ant, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, to certify for payment to counsel the sum of $1750, as full compensation for the attorney’s services and as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. The remainder of the statutory maximum which the Secretary has withheld pending determination of this issue should be paid forthwith to the claimant and his family.

Order of District Court modified accordingly.

1

. 42 U.S.C.A. § 406 (b) (1).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11977: 21984: 11985: 12004: 119762026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carter v. Montgomery Ward & Co.76 F.R.D. 565 (E.D. Tenn. 1976)
  2. Doe v. Chao346 F. Supp. 2d 840 (W.D. Va. 2004)
  3. Stiltner v. Califano470 F. Supp. 261 (E.D. Tenn. 1977)
  4. Reeves v. Mathews435 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Tenn. 1977)
  5. Burris v. Heckler598 F. Supp. 573 (N.D. Tex. 1984)
  6. Edenton v. Heckler611 F. Supp. 264 (D. Maryland 1985)

Most recent

  1. Doe v. Chao346 F. Supp. 2d 840 (W.D. Va. 2004)
  2. Edenton v. Heckler611 F. Supp. 264 (D. Maryland 1985)
  3. Burris v. Heckler598 F. Supp. 573 (N.D. Tex. 1984)
  4. Stiltner v. Califano470 F. Supp. 261 (E.D. Tenn. 1977)
  5. Reeves v. Mathews435 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Tenn. 1977)
  6. Carter v. Montgomery Ward & Co.76 F.R.D. 565 (E.D. Tenn. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Redden v. Celebrezze, 370 F.2d 373 (4th Cir. 1966) 45
Mckittrick v. Gardner, 378 F.2d 872 (4th Cir. 1967) 69

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list