Case Citator › Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.

Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
701 F.2d 542
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
49 of 49
Citing cases (total)
49
Treatment dates
1986–2026
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Overruled in part: all 49 flagged citations have been read. The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co. reinstated its earlier panel opinion except on the interest issue.
More on how this was screened

Two later en banc decisions overruled that reinstated opinion's allowance of excess expert witness fees as costs; its postjudgment interest rule remained in force in the Fifth Circuit. The Tenth, Third, and Ninth Circuits rejected the interest rule for their own courts. The 5 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

49 later cases cite Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.; 49 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Fifth Circuit overruled the reinstated portion of Copper Liquor allowing excess expert witness fees as costs under a broader standard.

    International Woodworkers of America v. Champion International Corp. · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Our holding overrules those portions of Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 27, 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981); Copper Liquor Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 684 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir.1982) (Copper Liquor III), modified on other grounds en banc, 701 F.2d 542 (5th *1176Cir.1983), and their progeny approving the taxing of excess expert witness’ fees as costs under standards different from that here announced.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Fifth Circuit overruled Copper Liquor's reinstated panel ruling permitting excess expert witness fees as costs under the Clayton Act.

    J.T. Gibbons, Inc. v. Crawford Fitting Co. · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    To the extent that Copper Liquor Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 684 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir.1982), modified on other grounds en banc, 701 F.2d 542 (5th Cir.1983), held otherwise, it is overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Tenth Circuit declined to follow Copper Liquor's interest timing rule and held that interest on costs begins when the amount is first fixed.

    Wheeler v. John Deere Co. · Tenth Circuit · filed

    In MidAmerica, we rejected the Fifth Circuit's rule that postjudgment interest accrues from the date of the judgment conferring the right to attorneys' fees. ... MidAmerica, 962 F.2d at 1476 (discussing Copper Liquor, 701 F.2d 542, 544-45).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Third Circuit rejected Copper Liquor's rule that interest on attorney fees begins when entitlement is established without a fixed amount.

    Eaves v. County of Cape May · Third Circuit · filed

    the rule in Copper Liquor cannot be squared with the plain meaning of the term "any money judgment" found in S 1961(a).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit declined to follow Copper Liquor's interest timing rule and required a definite fee amount before interest starts.

    Thrower v. Academy Mortgage Corp. · Ninth Circuit · filed

    According to that court, “[i]f a judgment is rendered that does not mention the right to attorneys’ fees, and the prevailing party is unconditionally entitled to such fees by statutory right, interest will accrue from the date of judgment.” Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 701 F.2d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (per curiam), overruled in part on other grounds by, J.T. Gibbons, Inc. v. Crawford Fitting Co., 790 F.2d 1193, 1195 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). ... As discussed above, running postjudgment interest from the date of entitlement to fees would contradict § 1961’s plain text. ... We thus decline to depart from our requirement of “a definite and certain designation of the amount which plaintiff is owed by defendant” before starting the accrual of postjudgment interest.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace