Legal Opinion
Costello v. Daddario
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 12, 1989No. Civ. 87-7488PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.
Presently pending before the court are the court’s sua sponte order for plaintiffs’ attorney to show cause why sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should not be imposed for filing the complaint in this action; defendants’ petition for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; 1 plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and plaintiffs’ application for delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238.
Plaintiffs, Joseph Costello and Michael…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Blanchard v. BergeronSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fletcher v. O'DONNELLDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
- Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
- In Re City of Philadelphia LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Buzzerd v. East Pikeland TownshipDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990