Legal Opinion
A. Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc. v. Schenley Distillers, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided March 29, 1962No. Civ. A. No. 2199PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff now seeks, under the general remedial section of the Lanham Act,2 to recover as costs certain fees, traveling expenses, and disbursements of its attorneys.3 Only these elements *376of the proposed bill are here contested. Because of their unusual nature they will be ruled upon by the Court without the usual prior action by the Clerk.4
Plaintiff admits that, unlike the general practice in England,5 American courts tax attorneys’ fees against a losing party only in certain special situations, and that the Lanham Act does not specifically provide for such…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Trustees v. GreenoughSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. PettusSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Salton Inc. v. Cornwall Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1979
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Sanford v. CBS Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967