Skip to main content
· 5/7/1980

William Knighton, Cross-Appellant v. John C. Watkins, Cross-Appellees

Citations

  • 616 F.2d 795
  • 29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1535
  • 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17792

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[A] motion for attorney’s fees is unlike a motion to alter or amend a judgment. It does not imply a change in the judgment, but merely seeks what is due because of the judgment. It is, therefore, not governed by the provisions of Rule 59(e).”
  • “Thus, a motion for attorney's fees is unlike a motion to alter or amend a judgment. It does not imply a change in the judgment, but merely seeks what is due because of the judgment. It is, therefore, not governed by the provisions of Rule 59(e).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gee, Rubin, Politz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.