Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of ERS

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that because the appellants “did not, in ... their notices of appeal, designate the ... order as an order from which an appeal was being taken, they have not properly appealed it”
• holding that an unpublished decision of a state trial court may not be cited
• noting that although the court’s holding on one point “is outcome-dispositive of the present appeal,” the court would address an additional issue “in order to provide guidance to the parties and the circuit court on remand”
• vacating award of attorney’s fees because court should have considered both the percentage and lodestar methods, but without comment on the court’s award of an excise tax
• analyzing different methods used to award attorney fees in common fund cases and concluding that “the approach to be applied in awarding attorney’s fees in class action lawsuits generally [should] be left to the discretion of the trial judge”
• court was not precluded from sua sponte reversing its prior ruling, which was based on an erroneous application of the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).