Legal Opinion
Wells v. Oppenheimer & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 4, 1984No. 83 Civ. 0807 (WK)PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*359MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KNAPP, District Judge.
This motion presents an interesting test of the value of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1983. The basic question presented is when should a party who has successfully defeated a motion for summary judgment be granted attorneys fees.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint in this case was filed on January 28, 1983 and contained deficiencies which obviously invited motion practice on defendants’ behalf. After those deficiencies had been dealt with, the defendants,1 at a pre-trial conference held for that purpose, requested leave to make…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,508 Samuel Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc. And George GracisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
3Cited by31 opinions
- General William C. Westmoreland, Ambassador Richard Helms v. Cbs, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
- Chester R. Robinson and Wife, Frances Earline Robinson, and Roy K. Ewart and David B. Black v. The National Cash Register CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1986
- Beck v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
- Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v. AronoffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.