Legal Opinion
Medical Protective Company v. Herman Pang
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 25, 2013No. 11-17384PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Defendant-Appellant’s request for publication is granted. The Memorandum filed June 26, 2013, and appearing at 2013 WL 3213349, is withdrawn and the authored Opinion filed concurrently with this order is substituted in its stead.
OPINION
WOOD, Senior District Judge:
Dr. Herman Pang appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) (“Rule 54(d)”), and his two motions for attorney’s fees pursuant to Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 12-341.01 (“Section 12-341.01”). Rule 54(d) mandates the award of costs to the “prevailing party.” Section…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. HinksonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial HospitalArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Associated Indemnity Corp. v. WarnerArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Victor Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation California Interscholastic Federation Opinion Southern SectionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- McAlister v. CitibankCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Simon Cheffins v. Michael StewartCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Medical Protective Co. v. PangDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2014
- Ara Inc. v. City of GlendaleDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
- Ameriprise Financial Services v. Ijeamaka EkweaniCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of PhoenixCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.