Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 50

                                        - 50 -                                        
          Moreover, unlike Izen, Jones commenced his intervention efforts             
          well after the Court of Appeals had effectively determined that             
          the interests of the participating nontest case petitioners were            
          adequately represented in the test case appeal.  See supra Part             
          III.C.2.a.  We therefore disallow all of his (and his                       
          paralegal’s) time relating to the Cerasolis’ motion to intervene,           
          amounting to 37.15 hours of attorney time and 14.1 hours of                 
          paralegal time.38                                                           
                    d.   Pre- and Post-Appeal Tax Court Filings                       
               The reconstructed worksheets include time entries relating             
          to filings in this Court that both predate (motion for                      
          reconsideration of Dixon IV--May 2000) and postdate (status                 
          reports--April 30 and May 2003) the period of the appeal.  As               
          those entries are not properly includable in a request for                  
          appellate fees, we disallow the corresponding 14.56 hours of                
          attorney time and 10.2 hours of paralegal time.                             






          37(...continued)                                                            
          1991-614), would not automatically terminate at the Tax Court               
          door.  Consequently, we believe Jones’s efforts in that regard              
          are properly compensable.                                                   
          38 In their third supplement to the Jones fee request, the                  
          Jones petitioners assert that Jones’s work on the Cerasolis’                
          motion to intervene “was useful to other counsel as they prepared           
          for oral argument.”  Again, we fail to see the beneficial effect.           
          See supra note 25.                                                          




Page:  Previous  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011