Legal Opinion

Lindeberg v. Howard

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 20, 1906No. 1,219PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge

(after making.the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court).

Did the court err in holding that attorney’s fees were an element of damage to be considered by the jury in a case of this character? The statute of Alaska provides: “Sec. 384. An injunction may be allowed, by the court or judge thereof at any time after the commencement of the action and before judgment. Before allowing the same the court or judge shall require of the plaintiff an undertaking, with one or more sureties, to the effect that he will pay all costs and disbursements that may be decreed to the defendant,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Day v. WoodworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
  2. Oelrichs v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  3. Arcambel v. WisemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1796
  4. Tullock v. MulvaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  5. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1902

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1955
  2. In re Farmers' Union Mercantile Co.District Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1928
  3. In re WardDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1913
  4. Sullivan v. CartierCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906
  5. Local Union No. 368 of Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, & Paperhangers v. Barker Painting Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API