Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• comparing Miss. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.5 and lodestar method outlined in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974) overruled on other grounds by Coston v. Bank of Malvern (In re Coston), 991 F.2d 257, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1993)
• “[I]t is clear that but for [the] breach there would have been no need for [Columbus] to become entangled in the litigation with” the intervenors.
• “The contract right to recover ... includes those costs incurred in defending against the intervenors as a result of the [lessees’] breach.”
• judicial estoppel applies “where there is multiple litigation between the same parties and one party knowingly assert(s) a position inconsistent with the position in the prior litigation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).