KS PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIRE SYSTEM v. REIMER & KOGER ASSOCIATES

Nos. 97-1880, 97-2811.

165 F.3d 627 (1999)

KANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. REIMER & KOGER ASSOCIATES, a Kansas Corporation; Ronald Reimer, an individual; Kenneth H. Koger, an individual; Clifford W. Shinski, an individual; Brent Messick, an individual; Robert Crew, an individual, Defendants-Appellees Sherman Dreiseszun, an individual; I.I. Ozar, an individual; Frank Sebree, an individual; Michael K. Russell; an individual; Gage & Tucker, a Law Partnership; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., an accountancy firm; KPMG Peat Marwick, an accountancy firm; Robert Spence, an individual; Marilyn J., Co-Executor of the Estate of Frank S. Morgan, Defendants. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System; Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert Crew, an individual, Plaintiff v. Reimer & Koger Associates; Ronald Reimer, an individual; Kenneth H. Koger, an individual; Clifford W. Shinski, an individual; Brent Messick, an individual; Sherman Dreiseszun, an individual; I.I. Ozar, an individual; Frank Sebree, an individual; Michael K. Russell, an individual; Gage & Tucker, a law partnership; Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., an accountancy firm, Defendants KPMG Peat Marwick, an accountancy firm; Robert Spence, an individual; Defendants-Appellees Thomas S. Morgan, co-executor of the estate of Frank S. Morgan; Marilyn J., Co-Executor of the Estate of Frank S. Morgan, Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Decided January 14, 1999.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Eugene J. Schlitz, Chicago, IL, argued (Robert F. Coleman, Kenneth Philip Ross, Timothy K. McPike, Eugene I. Pavalon and Geoffrey, on the brief), for appellant.

Hille R. Sheppard, Chicago, IL, argued (F. Llyod, Donald W. Rose, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.


JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System appeals from orders of the district court awarding attorneys fees and costs against it under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (1994). KPERS points out that the awards were entered against KPERS itself, whereas the statute authorizes awards against KPERS's attorneys. KPERS argues that the fees and costs were not justified, as it did not act unreasonably or in bad...

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