Legal Opinion

Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp.

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided September 9, 2003No. 1:98-cv-00045Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

QUIST, District Judge.

The Court has before it Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment to include pre and postjudgment interest. In their motion, Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.6013(8) and post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Defendant, Taco Bell, does not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to postjudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, nor does Taco Bell dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest under M.C.L. § 600.6013(8). However, the parties disagree on the following issues with…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Michael J. Foley v. City of Lowell, Massachusetts, Michael J. Foley v. City of Lowell, MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
  2. People v. McIntireMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. Hawkins; People v. ScherfMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  4. People v. HawkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Kingsley Associates, Inc. v. Moll Plasticrafters, Inc., Moll Plasticrafters, Inc. (Del), and Moll Plasticrafters LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995

15 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