Falstaff Brewing Corporation, General Brewing Company S & P Company v. Miller Brewing Company, and Philip Morris, Incorporated
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ALARCON, Circuit Judge.
The Falstaff Brewing Corporation (Falstaff) has appealed from the order of the district court finding Falstaff in contempt for inter alia failing to return documents as required by a protective discovery order and imposing costs payable to Miller Brewing Co. (Miller) for the expenses incurred by Miller in an attempt to locate the missing items. We are asked to decide whether the facts support a finding of civil or criminal contempt. We conclude that they do not and reverse the contempt order. We affirm the award of expenses, including attorney’s fees, attributable to…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- In Re OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by192 opinions
- Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Jerome Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and Nathan Johnson, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant. Jerome Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and Nathan Johnson, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling ConsultantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Hyde & Drath v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
187 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.