R. L. Renken v. Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated)

Ninth Circuit

R. L. Renken v. Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated)

475 F.2d 766, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10889

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1973

Docket72-2564

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 475 F.2d 766 (R. L. Renken v. Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. L. Renken v. Harvey Aluminum (Incorporated), 475 F.2d 766, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10889 (9th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, confirming the arbitrator’s award for the plaintiffs, after the entry of a consent decree. Error is charged against the District Court’s Order confirming the award, made on June 14, 1972, in two respects: (a) respondent’s alleged error in failure to give adequate notice; and (b) an alleged fraud in presentation of an earlier claim by a respondent.

We find no merit in this appeal, and we find it a frivolous appeal. Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

*767 While the factual basis is not as flagrant as that in Lowe v. Willacy, 239 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1956), and Furbee v. Vantage Press, Inc., 150 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 464 F.2d 835, 837-838 (1972), we hold a penalty is proper against appellant.

The District Court’s Order is affirmed and the case is remanded to the District Court for the assessment of double costs to the appellees.

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