Travelers Insurance v. Lawrence
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentSneed, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent. While my brothers and I agree that the fee sought to be recovered by the appellee United States Marshal is not commensurate with the usual market value of undertakings requiring similar effort and skill, it is my opinion that this disparity and its adverse consequences to the mortgagor’s equity of redemption should not be eliminated by the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1921 adopted by the majority.
It is undisputed that our task is to interpret properly 28 U.S.C. § 1921. My brothers do this by asserting that if the applicable state law does not characterize what the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Blossom v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. City of ClarksdaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Feldman Inv. Co. v. Connecticut General Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
- The Cesare AugustoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1941
- Nalle v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.