Legal Opinion

Bergman v. United States

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided November 17, 1986No. G77-6PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ENSLEN, District Judge.

There remain three matters for the Court to decide in this lengthy proceeding: (1) defendant’s objections to plaintiffs’ February 15, 1985 Bill of Costs; (2) plaintiffs’ July 16, 1985 Motion to Extend Time for Filing Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief; and (3) plaintiffs’ April 10, 1984 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant plain*353tiffs all of the costs they have requested, grant plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of. time, and deny plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Facts

The facts of this case are…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Smith v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bergman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  2. Bergman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  3. Bergman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  4. Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo NationDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API