Legal Opinion
Fleischer v. A.A.P. Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 10, 1964PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TENNEY, District Judge.
This is a motion brought by plaintiff, the losing party, pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to review the taxation of costs by the Clerk of this Court.
In addition, defendant Paramount Pictures Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “defendant Paramount”), in its affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, requests that the Clerk be directed to re-tax the costs as submitted.
The gist of the complaints filed in this action alleged that defendant Paramount *33and its codefendants deprived plaintiff Dave Fleischer of his proper share of the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Jane Perlman v. C. Russell Feldmann, Newport Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- United States v. Marrian Kolesar and Andrew Kolesar, Her HusbandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Lichter Foundation, Inc. v. Russell A. Welch, Collector of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1959
- Perlman v. FeldmannDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1953
- Kemart Corporation, a Corporation v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw Feeders, Inc., and Cross-Appellees v. Carrier Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. AndrusCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
- Henry Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Electronic Specialty Co. v. International Controls Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- Voight v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.