Legal Opinion
Reprosystem, B v. v. SCM Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 19, 1986No. 77 Civ. 5705 (RWS)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWEET, District Judge.
Hale Russell & Gray (“HRG”) have moved to enforce a settlement agreement and to enter judgment against its former client N. Norman Muller (“Muller”) of $365,471.96 for attorneys’ fees and disbursements incurred in connection with HRG’s representation of Muller and Reprosystem, B.Y. in the underlying action. The motion is denied for the reasons set forth below. HRG has also moved for Rule 11 sanctions in connection with the present motion which will be denied.
Prior Proceedings
On October 24, 1985, HRG and counsel for Muller appeared before this court to enter an oral…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tenavision, Inc. v. NeumanNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Doyle Dane Bernbach, Inc. v. AvisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1981
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pan Am Corp. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- MBIA Insurance v. Patriarch Partners VIII, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. Masco Corporation Of IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- USA Network v. Jones Intercable, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Sonomed Technology, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.