§ 151
- Citation
- § 151
- Parent Document
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2009-10-09
Other Sections in This Document (181)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 982
- § 982
- § 982
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
Full Text
348 charswe awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff for opposing the defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, which was based on a contract. We held that “the underlying contract between the parties is not collateral to the proceedings but plays an integral part in defining the rights of the parties.” Id. at 1340. By contrast, in In re Johnson,