Leyda Hernandez v. The Hertz Corporation, Defendant-Third Party v. Alejandro Hernandez, Third Party

Third Circuit

Leyda Hernandez v. The Hertz Corporation, Defendant-Third Party v. Alejandro Hernandez, Third Party

867 F.2d 1330, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3072, 1989 WL 15757

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided March 15, 1989·No. 88-5415·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appeal in this case is patently frivolous; moreover, the appellant knew that the appeal was frivolous when it was filed. The appeal is dismissed. On receipt of our mandate, the district court shall award the appellee any damages caused by the appeal, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The appellee is also awarded double costs. See Fed.R.App.P. 38; Collins v. Amoco Production Company, 706 F.2d 1114 (11th Cir.1983).

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appeal in this case is patently frivolous; moreover, the appellant knew that the appeal was frivolous when it was filed. The appeal is dismissed. On receipt of our mandate, the district court shall award the appellee any damages caused by the appeal, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The appellee is also awarded double costs. See Fed.R.App.P. 38; Collins v. Amoco Production Company, 706 F.2d 1114 (11th Cir.1983).

DISMISSED.

Leyda Hernandez v. The Hertz Corporation, Defendant-Third Party v. Alejandro Hernandez, Third Party, 867 F.2d 1330, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3072, 1989 WL 15757 (3d Cir. 1989).

Pincite

867 F.2d 1330 (Leyda Hernandez v. The Hertz Corporation, Defendant-Third Party v. Alejandro Hernandez, Third Party) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related