Copperweld Steel Company, in No. 79-1799 v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler, Demag Stranggiess-Technik Gmbh, Demag Aktiengesellschaft, in No. 79-1800
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:
In 1915, well before the advent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the liberal policy on awarding costs which they embody, this court held that “a rule of court, or a practice equivalent thereto, is needed to justify the taxation [of premiums paid for posting a bond].” The Texas, 226 F. 897, 905 (3d Cir. 1915). However, the court also stated that “such a rule or practice has become so desirable that we feel confident the court below will take an early opportunity to conform its procedure in this respect to the custom prevailing in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Copperweld Steel Company, in No. 77-1493 v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler, Demag Stranggiess-Technik Gmbh, Demag Aktiengesellschaft, in No. 77-1494Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- In Re Northern Indiana Oil Co. Moore v. FletcherCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lamborn v. DittmerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Nugget Distributors Cooperative of America, Inc. v. Mr. Nugget, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Roberson v. BrassellDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1998
- Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating EngineersDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-CohenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.