You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Pac-Tec, Inc. v. Amerace Corporation

Citations: 922 F.2d 1577; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 394Docket: 89-1329

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; January 13, 1991; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Amerace Corporation is awarded attorney fees and double costs amounting to $134,000.18 from Pac-Tec, Inc. and Owen E. Perry, who are jointly and severally liable for this payment. This ruling follows the court's opinion issued on May 9, 1990, and is based on Amerace's application for these costs, which was considered alongside the oppositions submitted by Pac-Tec and Perry. The payment is to be made within 30 days of the order dated January 14, 1991, issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Legal Issues Addressed

Award of Attorney Fees and Double Costs

Application: The court awarded attorney fees and double costs to Amerace Corporation against Pac-Tec, Inc. and Owen E. Perry.

Reasoning: Amerace Corporation is awarded attorney fees and double costs amounting to $134,000.18 from Pac-Tec, Inc. and Owen E. Perry, who are jointly and severally liable for this payment.

Deadline for Payment of Awarded Costs

Application: The court specified that the payment must be made within 30 days of the order.

Reasoning: The payment is to be made within 30 days of the order dated January 14, 1991, issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Joint and Several Liability for Costs

Application: Pac-Tec, Inc. and Owen E. Perry were held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the attorney fees and double costs to Amerace Corporation.

Reasoning: Amerace Corporation is awarded attorney fees and double costs amounting to $134,000.18 from Pac-Tec, Inc. and Owen E. Perry, who are jointly and severally liable for this payment.

Procedural Requirements for Award of Fees

Application: The award was based on Amerace's application for costs and considered the oppositions submitted by Pac-Tec and Perry.

Reasoning: This ruling follows the court's opinion issued on May 9, 1990, and is based on Amerace's application for these costs, which was considered alongside the oppositions submitted by Pac-Tec and Perry.