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 Unite d States friend; Samuel Yarber; Earline Caldwell; * District Court for the Lillie Caldwell; Gwendolyn Daniels; * Eastern District o f 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 Decemb er 16, 1996 and July 8, 1997 orders requiring the State to pay attorney & s f ees and litigation expenses in curred between 1994 and 1996 as part of its obligation to fund 71.5% of the sit e acquisition costs for the Science Center Investigative Learning Center (ILC) magne t school. We affirm.

In 1988 , the district court approved the construction of the ILC as part of it s magnet school order. W e approved the overall magnet school budget, but because the site acquisit ion costs were not included in the budget, we remanded the case for th e district c ourt to “conduct a hearing to select a site for the [ILC] and add an amoun t sufficient to purchase the sele cted 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 acquisi tion costs. On April 22, 1994, the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (City Board) filed itsThe 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 acquisitio n costs, seeking, inter alia, additional attorney & s fee s, legal costs, and expert fees incurred between 1994 and 1 996 relating to the acquisition of certain properties and state court condemna tion proceedings. In December 1996, the district court confirmed tha t attorney & s fees and litigation costs were includable as site acquisition costs. Following a March 1997 hearing, the distri ct 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.

Beca use the expenses requested related to state condemnation proceedings
, which required the use of expert witnesses and the valuation of property, we agree with the di strict court & s determination that such costs were necessary and proper sit e 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 an d $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.