holding that district court erred in striking affirmative defenses where further facts were needed to resolve issue in case
Summary of this case from Houston v. Manheim-New YorkNo. 84-1793.
July 7, 1986.
C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-manded for further consideration in light of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U. S. 561 (1986). Reported below: 753 F. 2d 262.
holding that district court erred in striking affirmative defenses where further facts were needed to resolve issue in case
Summary of this case from Houston v. Manheim-New Yorkholding that district court erred in striking affirmative defenses where further facts were needed to resolve the issue in the case
Summary of this case from U.S. Commodity Futures Trading v. A.S. Templeton Groupholding that reasonable attorney fees are generally determined by attorney's normal billing rate
Summary of this case from In re Cendant Corp., Derivative Action Litigationapplying Rule 10b-5 findings to adjudication of common law fraud claims
Summary of this case from In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.stating that satisfaction of plaintiff's duty of inquiry may require a "rather painstaking investigation"
Summary of this case from In re FischerStating that satisfaction of the plaintiff's inquiry may involve a "rather painstaking investigation."
Summary of this case from In re SmithFull title:CITY OF McKEESPORT ET AL. v. CUNNINGHAM
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jul 7, 1986
7 at 115 (2d ed. 1990) ("Loss of expected tax benefits do not qualify as out-of-pocket loss and thus can be…
Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell Int'lThe starting point in determining a reasonable hourly rate is the attorneys' usual billing rate, but this is…