R. L. RENKEN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
HARVEY ALUMINUM (INCORPORATED), DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant from an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, confirming the arbitrator’s award for the plaintiffs, after the entry of a consent decree. Error is charged against the District Court’s Order confirming the award, made on June 14, 1972, in two respects: (a) respondent’s alleged error in failure to give adequate notice; and (b) an alleged fraud in presentation of an earlier claim by a respondent.
We find no merit in this appeal, and we find it a frivolous appeal. Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. While the factual basis is not as flagrant as that in Lowe v. Willacy, 239 F. 2d 179 (9th Cir. 1956), and Furbee v. Vantage Press, Inc., 150 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 464 F. 2d 835, 837-838 (1972), we hold a penalty is proper against appellant.
The District Court’s Order is affirmed and the case is remanded to the District Court for the assessment of double costs to the appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
William H. and Avilda L. Edwards v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 680 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1982)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lucy Ellen Candy Div. OF F & F Labs., Inc., 517 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1975)
-
Thompson v. Tega-Rand Int'l, 740 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1984)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lowe v. Willacy, 239 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1956)
- Furbee v. Vantage Press, Inc., 464 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1972)