United States Ex Rel. Terry Investment Co. v. United Funding & Investors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the court’s refusal to enforce the judgment against the defendant created a de facto stay, permitting the district court to order the defendant to post a supersedeas bond in the absence of the defendant moving for a stay
• “Here, appellant has not moved for a stay under Rule 62([b]) . . . . Rule 62([b]) nowhere expressly provides that the district court may, of its own accord or on motion from appellee, order appellant to post a supersedeas bond.”
• “Here, appellant has not moved for a stay under Rule 62([b]) . . . . Rule 62([b]) nowhere expressly provides that the district court may, of its own accord or on motion from appellee, order appellant to post a supersedeas bond.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).