Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.

346 F.2d 152

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-05-10
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed to the extent that the appellant is to recover the principal amount of $6,000 and attorney’s fees of $1,500. The cross-appéllant is correct in its challenge of the inclusion in the judgment of the items for travel expense of witnesses and witness fees. There is no basis in the law for the allowance of these two items. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
CROSSMAN v. FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP.,346 F.2d 152(5th Cir. 1965)
Florence Lustig CROSSMAN, a/k/a Florence Lustig, trading and doing
business as Florence Lustig, Appellant, v. FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP.,
Appellee. FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., Appellant, v. Florence Lustig
CROSSMAN, a/k/a Florence Lustig, trading and doing business as Florence
Lustig, Appellee.
No. 21999.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 10, 1965.
Page 153
George O. Kluttz, Miami, Fla. (Robert C. Ward, Miami, Fla., Ward Ward, Miami, Fla., of counsel), for appellant-appellee.

Richard P. Kenney, Williams, Salomon Kenney, Miami, Fla., for appellee-appellant.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, BELL, Circuit Judge, and DYER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed to the extent that the appellant is to recover the principal amount of $6,000 and attorney's fees of $1,500. The cross-appellant is correct in its challenge of the inclusion in the judgment of the items for travel expense of witnesses and witness fees. There is no basis in the law for the allowance of these two items.

As modified, the judgment is affirmed.