Legal Opinion
Mills v. Lehigh Valley R.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 18, 1915No. 1911PublishedCited by 7 opinions
At Law. Action by William H. Mills and others against the Le-high Valley Railroad Company and others. On petition for allowance of counsel fees.
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, District Judge.
[1, 2] The petitioners brought suit to enforce an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission for reparation under the provisions of- the Act to Regulate Commerce of February 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, as amended, and, the case being tried to a jury, recovered verdict and judgment against the defendants in more than $9,000. Section 16 of the act regulates the procedure in suits to enforce compliance with the orders of the Commission and provides:
"If the petitioner shall finally prevail he shall he allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be taxed and collected as a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley RRSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Mills v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Lehigh Valley R. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913
3Cited by7 opinions
- Texas Co. v. SchriewerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Electrical Products Corp. v. Ziegler Drug Stores, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1932
- Davis v. ParringtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
- Glens Falls Portland Cement Co. v. Delaware &. Hudson Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- Goodspeed v. DubyOregon Supreme Court · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.