Laserfiche WebLink
2. Taw court aauresaeu the issue in detail in its <br />decision. <br />J. Tue Court's en banc decision was unanimous. <br />Welsn nas simply failed to establish any special <br />circumstance wnicn justify a rehearing of nis appeal for an awari <br />of attorney fees. <br />II. Welsn's Aeargunent on Attoraey Fees Presents IJo New <br />Arguments <br />Welsn's discussion of case law on an aware of attorney fees <br />under 42 U.S.C. S 1966 is a mere reiteration of the assertions <br />made in nis previously frlsd briefs. Tnere are no new case <br />citations or overrulings o; th_ cases relied upon by the City and <br />the court since the tide of the briefing or the rendering of the <br />court's decision. While Welsr, seeks to restate those arguments, <br />Cnere 1s notning new wniCâť‘ tars court nas not neard before. <br />Althougn Welsn spends a great deal of tine discussing and <br />distinguishing the cases relieu upon by the court, he fails for <br />wnat is now the fourtn time, counting the district court and two <br />appellate briefs, to present to the court a single case directly <br />supporting his claim. Tnis is nardly surprising, however, <br />considering the nature of his action. Tne determination of a <br />jurisdictional question involving the dredging of Minnesota lakes <br />simply does not arise to the constitutional stature of ti,e <br />traditional cases in which attorney fees are awarded: voting <br />-4- <br />