Legal Opinion
Marie O. Pedraza v. United Guaranty Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided December 9, 2002No. 01-15854PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
This appeal requires us to address a question of first impression in this circuit: Under what circumstances, if any, can anticipated attorneys’ fees properly be included within an appellate cost bond issued by a district court pursuant to either Fed. R.App. P. 7 (“Rule 7”) or the court’s inherent power to manage its affairs?
The district court concluded that both Rule 7 and its inherent power are legitimate sources of authority for including attorneys’ fees within an appellate cost bond, and further, that it was appropriate to rely on both of these bases in holding…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Marek v. ChesnySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Shiyang Huang v. Equifax Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2021
- Azizian v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Joseph Young v. New Process Steel, LPCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. LevyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
- Jim Sciaroni v. Target CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.