Legal Opinion
Scottsdale Insurance v. Tolliver
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 24, 2011No. 09-5150PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MELGREN, District Judge.
In this diversity case, Defendants Sandra and Michael Tolliver appeal from the district court’s order granting Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Tollivers contend that because the Oklahoma statute allowing such fees, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1101.1, is procedural and because that statute is in conflict with the procedure of Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the attorneys’ fees awarded by the district court violated the principles of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Scottsdale…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- Chieftain Royalty Co. v. Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- Farmer Ex Rel. Estate of Farmer v. Banco Popular of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
- Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Peter J. McNulty Law FirmCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.