Legal Opinion

David Foster and Catherine Foster v. Sigmund Barilow and Margaret Barilow

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 1, 1993No. 92-4034PublishedCited by 213 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOGGS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs David and Catherine Foster appeal the district court’s decision to grant attorney’s fees to the prevailing defendants, Sigmund and Margaret Barilow, in an action arising under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (1988). On appeal, the Fosters contend for the first time that the district court erred when it awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants without first finding that their claim was frivolous, groundless, or unreasonable. Because we find no applicable exception to the general rule that issues not raised in the district court are waived on appeal, we…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Hormel v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by213 opinions

  1. Scottsdale Insurance v. FlowersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  2. In Re: Marilyn E. Morris, Debtor. John Poss v. Marilyn E. MorrisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  3. Chao v. Hall Holding Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  4. Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of RedfordCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  5. Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010

208 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