Bosley v. Mineral County Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting argument that defendants’ offer of judgment for “full and 17 complete satisfaction of [plaintiff’s] claim against ... Defendants” included attorneys’ fees 18 and costs
• rejecting “full and complete satisfaction” of claims as sufficient unambiguous language to include attorneys’ fees in an offer
• rejecting argument that 9 defendants’ offer of judgment for “full and complete satisfaction of [plaintiff’s] 10 claim against . . . Defendants” included attorneys’ fees and costs
• civil rights case with the offer making no explicit reference to costs and fees
• noting courts cannot consider extrinsic evidence to the offer’s terms
• “If a defendant intends to make a lump sum Rule 68 offer inclusive of awardable costs, Marek makes abundantly clear the means by which to do so: precise drafting of the offer to recite that costs are included in the total sum offered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).