United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-3566

 

Michael C. Liddell, a minor, by *

Minnie Liddell, his mother and next *

friend; Kendra Liddell, a minor, *

by Minnie Liddell, her mother and next *

friend; Minnie Liddell; Roderick D. *

LeGrand, a minor, by Lois LeGrand, *

his mother and next friend; Lois *

LeGrand; Clodis Yarber, a minor, by *

Samuel Yarber, his father and next * Appeal from the United

States

friend; Samuel Yarber; Earline Caldwell; * District Court for the

Lillie Caldwell; Gwendolyn Daniels; * Eastern District of

Missouri.

National Association for the *

Advancement of Colored People; *

United States of America; City of St. *

Louis; *

*

 Plaintiffs; *

*

v. *

 * 

The Board of Education of the City of *

St. Louis; Hattie R. Jackson, President, *

Board of Education of the City of St. *

Louis; Rev. Earl E. Nance, Jr., a *

member of the Board of Education of *

the City of St. Louis; Renni B. Shuter, *

a member of the Board of Education; *

of the City of St. Louis; Paula V. *

Smith, a member of the Board of Educa- *
2

tion of the City of St. Louis; Dr. Albert *

D. Bender, Sr., a member of the Board *

of Education of the City of St. Louis; *

Eddie G. Davis, a member of the Board *

of Education of the City of St. Louis; *

Dr. John P. Mahoney, a member of the *

Board of Education of the City of St. *

Louis; Marybeth McBryan, a member *

of the Board of Education of the City *

of St. Louis; Thomas M. Nolan, a *

member of the Board of Education of *

the City of St. Louis; William Purdy, a *

member of the Board of Education of *

the City of St. Louis; Robbyn G. Wahby, *

a member of the Board of Education of *

the City of St. Louis; Madye Henson *

Whithead, a member of the Board of *

Education of the City of St. Louis; *

Dr. Cleveland Hammonds, Jr., Super- *

intendent of Schools for the City of St. *

Louis; *

*

 Defendants-Appellees;*

*

Ronald Leggett, St. Louis Collector of *

Revenue; *

 Defendant; *

*

State of Missouri; Mel Carnahan, *

Governor of the State of Missouri; *

Jeremiah (Jay) W. Nixon, Attorney *

General; Bob Holden, Treasurer; *

Richard A. Hanson, Commissioner of *

Administration; Robert E. Bartman, *

Commissioner of Education; Missouri *

State Board of Education, and its *

members; Thomas R. Davis; *
3

Sharon M. Williams; Peter F. *

Herschend; Jacqueline D. Wellington; *

Betty E. Preston; Russell V. Thompson; *

Rice Pete Burns; William Kahn; *

*

 Defendants-Appellants;*

*

Special School District of St. Louis *

County; Affton Board of Education; *

Bayless Board of Education; Brentwood *

Board of Education; Clayton Board of *

Education; Ferguson-Florissant Board *

of Education; Hancock Place Board of *

Education; Hazelwood Board of *

Education; Jennings Board of Education; *

Kirkwood Board of Education; LaDue *

Board of Education; Lindbergh Board of *

Education; Maplewood-Richmond *

Heights Board of Education; Mehlville *

Board of Education; Normandy Board *

of Education; Parkway Board of *

Education; Pattonville Board of Educa- *

tion; Ritenour Board of Education; *

Riverview Gardens Board of Education; *

Rockwood Board of Education; *

University City Board of Education; *

Valley Park Board of Education; *

Webster Groves Board of Education; *

Wellston Board of Education; St. Louis *

County; Buzz Westfall, County *

Executive; James Baker, Director of *

Administration, St. Louis County, *

Missouri; Robert H. Peterson, Collector *

of St. Louis County "Contract Account," *

St. Louis County, Missouri; The St. *

Louis Career Education District; *

*
4

 Defendants;*

*

St. Louis Teachers' Union, Local 420, *

AFT, AFL-CIO; *

*

 Intervenor Below. *

 

Submitted: February 25, 1998

 Filed: April 28, 1998 

 

Before MCMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

 

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

The State of Missouri (State) appeals from the district court&s December 16, 1996

and July 8, 1997 orders requiring the State to pay attorney&s fees and litigation expenses

incurred between 1994 and 1996 as part of its obligation to fund 71.5% of the site

acquisition costs for the Science Center Investigative Learning Center (ILC) magnet

school. We affirm.

In 1988, the district court approved the construction of the ILC as part of its

magnet school order. We approved the overall magnet school budget, but because the

site acquisition costs were not included in the budget, we remanded the case for the

district court to “conduct a hearing to select a site for the [ILC] and add an amount

sufficient to purchase the selected site to the magnet plan budget.” Liddell v. Board of

Educ., 907 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1990) (Liddell XIX). Under the terms of the magnet

school plan, the State is responsible for 71.5% of all site acquisition costs. On April 22,

1994, the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (City Board) filed its
The district court denied fees for certain out-of-town trips for counsel and 1

expert witnesses, and fees for two experts whose reports were not properly

itemized.

5

first interim motion for site acquisition costs, and the district court ordered the State to

pay $3,267,850, as its 71.5% share.

In May 1996, the City Board filed its third interim motion for site acquisition

costs, seeking, inter alia, additional attorney&s fees, legal costs, and expert fees incurred

between 1994 and 1996 relating to the acquisition of certain properties and state court

condemnation proceedings. In December 1996, the district court confirmed that

attorney&s fees and litigation costs were includable as site acquisition costs. Following

a March 1997 hearing, the district court granted the City Board&s request for fees, with

two exceptions, and ordered the parties to determine the exact dollar amount owed by 1

the State to the City Board. The State appeals. 

Because the expenses requested related to state condemnation proceedings,

which required the use of expert witnesses and the valuation of property, we agree with

the district court&s determination that such costs were necessary and proper site

acquisition costs. Although we are unable to calculate the exact amount at issue based

from the record submitted on appeal, the parties have indicated that the State&s 71.5%

share amounts to between $184,000 and $207,000. We trust that the parties will come

to an agreement as to the amount due without further court intervention.

Accordingly, we affirm.
6

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.