Legal Opinion

Coburn Optical Industries, Inc. v. Cilco, Inc.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Decided May 22, 1985No. C-84-734-DPublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HIRAM H. WARD, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion and Brief for Attorney’s Fees (March 11, 1985) and defendant’s Combined Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Cross Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (April 1, 1985). Both parties seek the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs against their opponent pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court will grant the plaintiff’s motion in part and deny it in part and deny the defendant’s motion. The Court on its own…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Nemeroff v. AbelsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
  3. Van Berkel v. Fox Farm and Road MacHineryDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1984
  4. Wells v. Oppenheimer & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
  5. Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1984

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Grice v. Secretary of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
  2. Zola v. GordonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1988
  3. Miller v. BadgleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
  4. Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1990
  5. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. AndersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988

26 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