Legal Opinion

Lew Wenzel & Company of Southern California, Inc. v. London Litho Supply Co., Inc., and Counterclaimant-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 4, 1977No. 76-2720PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

In this diversity case, London Litho Supply Co., Inc. (“Litho”) appeals from a judgment on remand contending that the district court improperly interpreted our remand from the prior appeal and, accordingly, impermissibly allowed Wenzel & Company (“Wenzel”) an award of attorney’s fees and incorrectly awarded Wenzel post-judgment interest from the date that the original judgment was entered, rather than from the date upon which judgment was entered after remand. We affirm.

Wenzel sued Joseph London and Litho on alternative theories of tort and breach of contract, seeking damages for injuries…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. T.E.D. Bearing Co. v. Walter E. Heller & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1974

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Handgards, Inc., a Corporation v. Ethicon, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  2. James Turner, and Cross-Appellee v. Japan Lines, Ltd., and Philippine President Lines Inc., Manila, and Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  3. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., Doing Business as Pacific Trailways v. The Greyhound Corporation and Greyhound Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  4. Diamond v. John Martin Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  5. Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1982

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

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

Powered by the Exa API