Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Bricklayers' Pension Trust Fund v. Taiariol.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bricklayers' Pension Trust Fund v. Taiariol Anchor | green | “mandates the imposition of post-judgment interest, thus removing the award of such interest from the discretion of the district court.” | 6 |
| 2 | Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. First Heights Bank, Fsb Pulte Diversified Companies, Inc. Pulte Corporation | green | “in diversity cases in this circuit, federal law controls postjudgment interest but state law governs awards of prejudgment interest.” | 4 |
| 3 | Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. First Heights Bank, Fsb Pulte Diversified Companies, Inc. Pulte Corporation | green | “state law governs awards of prejudgment interest.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.