HULL, A MINOR, BY HIS NATURAL PARENTS, GUARDIANS, AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, HULL ET UX.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Soares da Costa Contractor, Inc. v. Langer Elec. Co., 807 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
  …t the Court must vacate the Clarifying Order, pursuant to Rule 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See Deutsch v. Burlington Northern Ry.[Railroad] Corp.[Co.], 983 F. 2d 741 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, [507 U.S. 1030,] 113 S.Ct. 1845[, 123 L.Ed.2d 470] (1993). Specifically, Langer argues that the Court erred, as a matter of law, by failing to hold that the pending state law claims between Langer and Soares were resolved by the Confirmation Order pursuant to th…
• Celotex Corp. v. Edwards et ux., 514 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1995)
  …” I recognize, of course, that one may legitimately question the “frivolousness” of the injunction in light of the Fourth Circuit’s upholding the very injunction at issue in this case, see Willis v. Celotex Corp., 978 F. 2d 146 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 1030 (1993), and the disagreement of a substantial number of my colleagues. In my view, however, the Bankruptcy Judge’s error is sufficiently plain that the Court of Appeals was justified in allowing the Edwards to collect on their bond.21 [*331] V The…

  ← 1 / 3 →