Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc.

Seventh Circuit

Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc.

34 F. App'x 500

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 2002

DocketNo. 02-1299

StatusPublished

This text of 34 F. App'x 500 (Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc., 34 F. App'x 500 (7th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

When we remanded a previous appeal by Mr. Poteete because the district court had erroneously awarded the defendants attorneys’ fees on the basis of Fed.R.Civ.P. 68, we remarked that Poteete’s lawsuit was frivolous and that “the defendants may well be entitled to an award of fees anyway.” Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc., 185 F.3d 804, 808 (7th Cir.1999). And indeed the district court did award fees on remand, on the basis of the frivolous nature of Poteete’s suit and of his incessant follow-up filings, also frivolous. The award precipitated the current appeal, which is pro se and completely frivolous-[501]*501we cannot discern an intelligible argument and are given no basis for thinking that the award of fees was an abuse of discretion or otherwise unwarranted. The judgment of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.

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

ORDER

When we remanded a previous appeal by Mr. Poteete because the district court had erroneously awarded the defendants attorneys’ fees on the basis of Fed.R.Civ.P. 68, we remarked that Poteete’s lawsuit was frivolous and that “the defendants may well be entitled to an award of fees anyway.” Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc., 185 F.3d 804, 808 (7th Cir.1999). And indeed the district court did award fees on remand, on the basis of the frivolous nature of Poteete’s suit and of his incessant follow-up filings, also frivolous. The award precipitated the current appeal, which is pro se and completely frivolous-[501]*501we cannot discern an intelligible argument and are given no basis for thinking that the award of fees was an abuse of discretion or otherwise unwarranted. The judgment of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 F. App'x 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poteete-v-capital-engineering-inc-ca7-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack