O'DONNELL v. McGann

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that former Rule H4(a) “was clearly applicable to supersedeas bonds” in part because “a cross reference incorporated at the time of the adoption of the H rules stated that ‘[t]he following rules contain other provisions applicable to judicial bonds’”
• concluding that former Rule H4(a) “was clearly applicable to supersedeas bonds” in part because “a cross reference incorporated at the time of the adoption of the H rules stated that ‘[t]he following rules contain other provisions applicable to judicial bonds’”
• addressing the possibility of a constitutional challenge where Petitioners argued they were “financially unable” to meet the required supersedeas bond amount
• courts have inherent power to fix terms and conditions for stay of execution of judgments, including discretion to modify posting requirements for supersedeas bond
• trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that insurer “could not be expected to post a bond in excess of the face amount of its policy plus interest on the judgment and costs”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).