Legal Opinion
Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 26, 1972No. Civ. A. No. 42987PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAROLD K. WOOD, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Frances Sharp Lichtenstein, has moved for a rule to show cause why defendant Maurice Lichtenstein should not be compelled to pay $21,790.00 in counsel fees and $913.02 as costs incurred in the litigation of plaintiff’s cause of action. Mrs. Lichtenstein instituted suit in 1967 against her then husband and against Darby Farms, Inc., of which her husband was principal officer and director. Mrs. Lichtenstein contended that Mr. Lichtenstein had misused corporate funds and she sought an accounting and repayment of funds allegedly wrongfully…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Vaughan v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- ROLAX Et Al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. Et Al.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1951
- Frances Sharp Lichtenstein v. Maurice Lichtenstein and Darby Farms, Inc., Maurice LichtensteinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Stacy v. WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1970
- Bernstein v. BrennerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Richard H. White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecurityCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980
- Hairline Creations, Inc. v. Diane KefalasCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- Frances Sharp Lichtenstein v. Maurice Lichtenstein, and Darby Farms, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- Matlack, Inc. v. Hupp Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.