State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-appellant Arthur Andersen & Co. seeks relief from preclusionary and monetary sanctions imposed under Rule 37(b)(2), F.R.Civ.P., for noncompliance with discovery orders. In Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Finesilver, 10 Cir., 546 F.2d 338, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1096, 97 S.Ct. 1113, 51 L.Ed.2d 543, we upheld the validity of the discovery orders. The basic facts are outlined in that opinion and will not be repeated here. Motions by plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio, for imposition of sanctions were held in abeyance pursuant to our stay order. 546 F.2d at 340.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Hammond Packing Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver, Etc., State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Green v. DorrellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling ConsultantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banner Fund InternationalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2000
- Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.