Stoneham v. Texas, 386 U.S. 11 (1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Stoneham v. Texas, 386 U.S. 11 (1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (caed, 2023-11-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 11 714, 717 (1967)). 12 In their motions for fees, both parties invoke a provision from the nine Warehousing 13 Distributor Agreements (“WDAs”) that provides “should any action be initiated upon this contract, 14 the party prevailing in the above court of law shall be awarded its actual attorney fees, in addition 15 to any other court costs or awards by the court.”2 (See Doc. 532-1 at 6; Doc. 534-1 at 16.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STONEHAM
v.
TEXAS
No. 18.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 13, 1967.
386 U.S. 11
Charles E. Benson for appellant.
Below, Douglas, Spencer, Stated, Would.
Published
Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Fortas would reverse the judgment of the court below for the reasons stated in the opinion of The Chief Justice in Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 569.