Legal Opinion

Donohue v. Shell Provident Fund

District Court, S.D. Texas

Decided March 12, 1987No. C.A. H-86-2438PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARL O. BUE, Jr., District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Dolores Mironchik’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Defendants Shell Provident Fund, Shell Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Shell Pay Deferral Investment Fund have joined in Defendant Mironchik’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court announced at a conference that summary judgment in favor of Defendant Mironchik was appropriate. The Court, however, declines to award Mironchik’s counsel attorney fees under the Employee…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Iron Workers Local 272 v. BowenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
  2. Naddeo v. Officers & Employees Pension Plan of Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye Workers' International UnionDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Moore v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
  2. Hollingshead v. Burford Equipment Co.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1990
  3. Davis v. College Suppliers Co.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1993
  4. Nelson v. Bank of Boston, N.A.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1988
  5. Edmonds v. EdmondsNew York Supreme Court · 2000

4 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