◆ SpookStack

@ 122 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 Under all of the circumstances, I would affirm the contempt orders as to both Taylor and Haas. 7. Other contentions and issues. Judge Swygert’s opinion correctly holds that the matter of whether plaintiffs should recover attorneys’ fees must be de- ferred until the final outcome of the litigation but does allow such fees for the appellate work. Because of my position on the merits of the appeal I would only allow the appellate work fees commensurate with the work involving the shooter defendants which would be the full reasonable amount for the Hampton plaintiffs but which would be substantially curtailed for the Anderson plaintiffs. Judge Swygert’s opinion also directs the district court judge to whom the case is reassigned on remand “to give the retrial high priority.” I assume that this can only mean all possible priority and that we are not directing the district court to disregard the numerous types of litigation which might have statutory priority over this civil suit. I should think, for example, that cases under the so-called Speedy Trial Act would have precedence over the instant litigation. Because of the multiplicity of the claimed errors, at least in the Anderson plaintiffs’ briefs, it is somewhat difficult to be sure that all significant claims. have been. addressed. I am not aware, however, of any, including any of the various elaborating fragmentations, which cause me to think that a new trial is indicated as to any of the defendants except to the extent herein indicated. 8. Conclusion. It has not been a happy task to disagree to the extent to which I have felt compelled with the opinion of an esteemed brother judge but I consider that this case has important overtones of unbridled denigrating attacks on governmental officials. I hope I have made it clear that I do not entertain the idea that government officials should not have to answer in some forum for abuse of power. I would agree that, individual governmental officials who do not have absolute immunity should anticipate that they will be held accountable for monetary damages to those whom