neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
published
0.4 score
Cited for
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“Since the RICO statute does not contain any provisions concerning the award of prejudgment interest, the district court had discretion as to whether to award such interest.”
- Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. P & B Autobody, 43 F.3d 1546 (1st Cir. 1994).published“Since the RICO statute does not contain any provisions concerning the award of prejudgment interest, the district court had discretion as to whether to award such interest.”
- Aetna Cas. v. Arsenal Auto Repairs, No. 93-1877 (1st Cir. Dec. 29, 1994).published“Since the RICO statute does not contain any provisions concerning the award of prejudgment interest, the district court had discretion as to whether to award such interest.”
- Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. P & B Autobody, Arsenal Auto Repairs, Inc., Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Rodco Autobody, Betty Arhaggelidis, Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. P & B Autobody, Betty Arhaggelidis, 43 F.3d 1546 (1st Cir. 1994).published“Since the RICO statute does not contain any provisions concerning the award of prejudgment interest, the district court had discretion as to whether to award such interest.”
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mickler
v.
Nimishillen & Tuscarawas Railway Co.
v.
Nimishillen & Tuscarawas Railway Co.
No. 93-1506.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 16, 1994.
Published opinion
Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (3)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.