Legal Opinion
United States v. Hodgekins
District Court, N.D. Indiana
Decided March 24, 1993No. S91-530MPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MILLER, District Judge.
This cause comes before the court on the government’s motion to vacate the judgment, the defendant’s motion for attorney fees, and the defendant’s motion to strike footnote one of the government’s reply memorandum. The court assumes familiarity with the facts, see United States v. Hodgekins, 805 F.Supp. 653 (N.D.Ind.1992), and addresses each motion in turn.
I
On August 11,1992, the court granted defendant Barry Hodgekins’ summary judgment motion. United States v. Hodgekins, 805 F.Supp. 653. Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- David E. Heasley and Kathleen Heasley, Cross-Appellees v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Walter L. Peacock v. The Board of School Commissioners of the City of IndianapolisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- United States v. Frank Walus, A/K/A Franciszek WalusCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
- Karen Kingman Kenagy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. Barry J. HodgekinsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- United States v. GuessDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2005