28 U.S.C. § 2202
Further relief
Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 602
cases (107 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Indian Head Indus., Inc., 941 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2019).
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Indian Head Indus., Inc., 941 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2019). “After the appeal, Continental moved for further relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 . Under § 2202, parties who have successfully obtained a declaratory judgment may move for “further necessary or proper relief” based on that judgment.”
Schell v. OXY USA Inc., 814 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 2016). “On appeal, plaintiffs argue that they qualified for attorneys’ fees under the common-benefit exception to the American Rule; in the alternative, they argue for such fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 . “We review a district court’s attorneys’ fees award for abuse of discretion.”
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974). “against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment," 28 U. S. C. § 2202 , and it would not seem improper to enjoin local prosecutors who refuse to observe adverse federal judgments.”
Nautilus Ins. Co. Vs. Access Med., LLC (nrap 5), 2021 NV 10 (Nev. 2021). “1 Nautilus then moved for further relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2202, seeking reimbursement of the expenses it had already incurred defending the original California suit.”
United States v. Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty, 786 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1986). “Rather, it argues that the DJA itself would clothe a declaratory judgment court with the broad power to issue an extradition certificate in this case and directs our attention to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 , which provides that “[fjurther necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory…”
B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs. & Np Med., Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants, 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “1995); 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (1994). At the conclusion of this separate trial, the jury found that Abbott had failed to prove that Braun’s actions caused it any damages.”
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103 (1989). “§ 2201 ; 28 U. S. C. § 2202 (1982 ed.); New York Telephone Co.”
United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Sst Fitness Corp., 309 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2002). “Plaintiff-appellant United National Insurance Company (“United National”) appeals the denial of its motion, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 , for defense costs paid to its insured, defendant-appel-lee SST Fitness Corporation (“SST”).”
Samuel v. Frohnmayer, 770 P.2d 914 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Federal cases interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2202 , which is identical for present purposes to ORS 28.”
Nova Rsch., Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 952 A.2d 275 (Md. 2008). “[7] 28 U.S.C. § 2202 specifically provides as follows: "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.”
Mercantile Nat'l Bank at Dallas v. Bradford Trust Co., N/k/a Fidata Trust Co., 850 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1988). “MBank first argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2202 6 provides statutory authority for the award of attorney’s fees in this litigation.”
Horn & Hardart Co. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 659 F. Supp. 1258 (D.D.C. 1987). “In the wake of Horn & Hardart I’ s affirmance on appeal, Amtrak, the original defendant, took the initiative and filed a petition for an award of “further relief” against Horn & Hardart pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 . 2 On the basis of certain provisions in the operative leases,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.