green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.6 score
“here are contempt cases in abundant number holding that a court has discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses necessary to make an innocent party whole”
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Motorola, Inc. v. Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp.
But see Dekar Ind., Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971). 4 .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi Inc. v. King Construction of Houston, LLC
here are contempt cases in abundant number holding that a court has discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses necessary to make an innocent party whole
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Olivares, Santiago Meliton
he very purpose of the writ of habeas corpus to safeguard a per- son's freedom from detention in violation of constitutional guar- antees.
cited
Cited "see"
Fontaine Davis, Eric H. Washington Jerilyn North Robert L. Demmons Jimmie Braden Audry Lee Early Davis Brandi Swanson Susan Moorehead Anne Young Mary M. Carder Theresa Rodigou Kathleen J. Bradshaw Patricia Murray International Association of Black Firefighters-San Francisco Chapter United States of America v. City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation John W. Flaherty Edward E. Murphy William M. Shaughnessy Alfred E. Smyth San Francisco Firefighters, Local 798, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. United States of America, and Fontaine Davis, in Intervention/appellees v. City and County of San Francisco v. San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, in Intervention/appellant (Four Cases). Fontaine Davis v. City and County of San Francisco v. San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, in Intervention/appellant (Three Cases). Fontaine Davis v. City and County of San Francisco v. San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, in Intervention/appellant
See Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304, 1305 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. City & County of San Francisco
See Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304, 1305 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Henry Hope X-Ray Products, Inc. v. Marron Carrel, Inc., an Arizona Corporation and Karl Ungar
See Dekar Industries v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304 , 1306 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
John Zink Company, Cross-Appellant v. National Airoil Burner Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee
See Dow Chemical Co. v. Chemical Cleaning, Inc., 434 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Reed
See also Dekar Industries, Inc. v. Bissett-Berman Corp., 434 F.2d 1304, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 495 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Atlantic Wool Combing Co. v. Norfolk Milk, Inc., 357 F.2d 866, 869-70 (1st Cir.1966); Servo Corp. of Am. v. General Electric Co., 337 F.2d 716, 722-23, 725 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 934 , 86 S.Ct. 1061 , 15 L.Ed.2d 851 (1966); Heyman v. AR.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Syntex Ophthalmics, Inc. v. Novicky
See, e.g., Dekar Industries v. Bissett-Berman, 434 F.2d 1304 , 1305-06 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945 , 91 S.Ct. 1621 , 29 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bolettieri
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 1482.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 3, 1971.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Mississippi (1) · Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.