Legal Opinion

In Re Media Vision Technology Securities Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided January 23, 1996No. Master C-94-1015 EFLPublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

LYNCH, District Judge.

This Court referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Langford the application of plaintiffs’ counsel for costs and expenses incurred in the partial settlement of this action. After conducting a hearing and requesting and receiving additional documentation, Chief Magistrate Judge Langford issued his Findings and Recommendations on December 15, 1995. No party has objected.

The Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendations, and agrees with the general guidelines set forth therein regarding which expenses should be awarded, which should be discounted, and which should be…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Ramos v. LammCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1983
  4. Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Northcross v. Board of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. In re Toys "R" US-Delaware, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2014
  2. In Re Immune Response Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2007
  3. Dehoyos v. Allstate Corp.District Court, W.D. Texas · 2007
  4. Apple Corps Ltd. v. International Collectors SocietyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
  5. Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2019

43 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