Legal Document

399 U.S. 222 90 Supreme Court Reporter 1989 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 534 PERKINSv.STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. Nos. 1507 and 1556. June 23, 1970. PER CURIAM. 1 Following his success in this Perkins versus Standard Oil Co., 395 642, 89 1871, 23 599, the petitioner filed District for of Oregon an application allowance attorneys' fees, pursuant to § 4 Clayton Act,* legal services performed during appellate stages that litigation, both Appeals Court. The denied application, ruling did not authorize fees connection with proceedings. 2 Petitioner appealed decision simultaneously court two separate applications there latter believing our mandate Perkins, by mentioning was intended preclude award such fees. 3 error holding does counsel at a successfully prosecuted private antitrust action. Both language purpose make construction untenable. See American Can company Ladoga Canning 7 Cir., 44 Federal Reporter, 2nd 763, cert. denied, 282 899, 51 183, 75 L.Ed. 792. amount should, as general rule, be fixed first instance Court, after hearing evidence extent nature rendered. See, e.g., Osborn Sinclair Refining 207 F.Supp. 856, 864. also interpreting precluding litigation Our failure explicit mention simply left matter open consideration which directed. petitions certiorari are granted judgments vacated. Number 1556 is remanded Appeals, further proceedings consistent opinion. 5 It so ordered. 6 Judgments vacated causes remanded. Mr. Justice HARLAN took no part or these cases. * That section provides pertinent follows: 'Any person who shall injured business property reason anything forbidden laws may sue therefor any district recover threefold damages him sustained, cost suit, including reasonable attorney's fee.' 38 Statutes-at-Large 731, 15 Code KF62 15.

Classification Label: 5