Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Roadway Express, Inc. Vs. Piper

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 23, 1980

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 5 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. Vs. Eeoc US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1978
  2. Hall Vs. Cole US Supreme Court · May 21, 1973
  3. Arcambel Vs. Wiseman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1796
  4. Vaughan Vs. Atkinson US Supreme Court · May 14, 1962
  5. Societe Internationale Vs. Rogers US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1958
    Distinguished
  6. U.S. 752 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
    Search
  7. U.S. 752 (1980) Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
    Search
  8. and to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan
    Search
  9. in handling the case. Monk v. Roadway
    Search
  10. Monk v. Roadway
    Search
  11. which enumerates the costs that ordinarily may be taxed to a losing party. E.g., United States v. Ross
    Search
  12. Kiefel v. Las
    Search
  13. Vegas Hacienda, Inc., 404 F.2d 1163, 1170 (CA7 1968), cert. denied sub nom. Hubbard v. Kiefel
    Search
  14. however, we may look to the contemporaneous understanding of the term. Cf. Gilbert v. United
    Search
  15. States, 370 U. S. 650 , 370 U. S. 655 (1962). In 1796, the Court decided Arcambel v. Wiseman
    Search
  16. attorney's fees ordinarily are not among the costs that a winning party may recover. See Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier
    Search
  17. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  18. should be read together as part of the integrated statute approved in 1853. See Erlenbaugh v. United
    Search
  19. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  20. the uniform structure established by the 1853 Act, we are reluctant to disrupt it. See Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier
    Search
  21. Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  22. of federal statutes permit the award of attorney's fees. See Alyeska Page 447 U. S. 763 Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  23. from the original enactments in 1813 and 1853. To avoid the arbitrary results of Roadway's argument, Commissioner v. Brown
    Search
  24. U. S. 563 571 (1965), citing Helvering v. Hammel
    Search
  25. See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan
    Search
  26. Dellums v. Powell
    Search
  27. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan
    Search
  28. Cooke v. United
    Search
  29. powers are shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and discretion. See Gompers v. Bucks
    Search
  30. Green v. United
    Search
  31. defined circumstances, federal courts have inherent power to assess attorney's fees against counsel. In Link v. Wabash
    Search
  32. the general rule in federal courts is that a litigant cannot recover his counsel fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  33. Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing
    Search
  34. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier
    Search
  35. citing Vaughan v. Atkinson
    Search
  36. U. S. 1 , 412 U. S. 15 (1973). See Browning Debenture Holders' Comm. v. DASA
    Search
  37. of the issues in this opinion, the two provisions may be considered to have the same substantive content. See Lopez v. Arkansas
    Search
  38. Mid-Hudson Legal Services, Inc. v. G &
    Search
  39. See Stanziale v. First
    Search
  40. Charron v. Meau
    Search
  41. Chesa International, Ltd. v. Fashion
    Search
  42. Flaksa v. Little
    Search
  43. Gamble v. Pope
    Search
  44. F.2d 729, 735-736 (CA3) (en banc) (Biggs, C.J., dissenting), cert. denied sub nom. United States District Court v. Mahoney
    Search
  45. New York courts have ordered attorneys who delay litigation to pay costs or fines to the opposing party. E.g., Moran v. Rynar
    Search
  46. Kahn v. Stamp
    Search
  47. Gillet v. Beth
    Search
  48. cite no statutory authority for their holdings, apparently relying on the inherent powers of those courts. Moran v. Rynar
    Search
  49. supra, noted favorable commentary on Schwarz v. United
    Search
  50. Some due process implications of sanctions for misconduct of litigation were discussed in Societe Internationale v. Rogers
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial