1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 583 F.2d
  5. 583 F.2d 42 (1978)
 

PRATE v. FREEDMAN

No. 956, Docket 78-7008.

583 F.2d 42 (1978)

Ronald PRATE, Leonard LaRosa, Patricia Plumeri, Patricia A. Doyle, Theresa Young, Terrence P. Anderson, Michael A. DiGiovanni, Gary Gennarino, Michael O. Keller, Charles J. Zona, Joseph P. Tantalo, Michael Perry, and Samuel T. Germano, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Elisha FREEDMAN, City Manager of the City of Rochester, N. Y., Thomas Hastings, Chief of Police of the City of Rochester Police Department, Members of the County of Monroe Civil Service Commission, and Executive Director of the County of Monroe Civil Service Commission, Defendants, and John Howard, Johnny L. Smith, and John Wyche, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. Ronald S. ZAVAGLIA, Carol Tschiderer, and Thomas A. Tschiderer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Elisha FREEDMAN, City Manager of the City of Rochester, N. Y., Thomas Hastings, Chief of Police of the City of Rochester Police Department, Members of the County of Monroe Civil Service Commission, and Executive Director of the County of Monroe Civil Service Commission, Defendants, and John Howard, Johnny L. Smith and John Wyche, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided August 8, 1978.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John A. Gresham, Rochester, N. Y. (Steven L. Brown, Greater Up-State Law Project, Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for defendants-intervenors-appellants.

Alice J. Lenahan, Atty., Rochester, N. Y. (Angelo T. Calleri, Antell, Harris & Calleri, Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MANSFIELD, Circuit Judges.

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge:

The central issue upon these appeals is whether John Howard, Johnny L. Smith, et al., who successfully defended a consent judgment obtained by them in a prior civil rights action (Howard v. Friedman, Civ.No. 74-234) against attack in the present lawsuits instituted by appellees, which were found by the district court to be "unreasonable and vexatious," may recover their attorneys' fees as costs from those who instituted the new groundless...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases