Citation network
Cooter and Gell Vs. Hartmarx
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
U.S. 384 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
U.S. 384 (1990) Cooter & Gell v. HartmarxSearch
-
would be justified in concluding that it had abused its discretion. Pp. 496 U. S. 400 -402. (b) Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
returned a verdict for Intercontinental on Danik's counterclaim. Both judgments were affirmed on appeal. Danik, Inc. v. IntercontinentalSearch
-
Intercontinental Apparel, Inc. v. DanikSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. Danik, Inc. v. HartmarxSearch
-
should also pay the expenses respondent incurred in defending its Rule 11 award on appeal. Relying on Westmoreland v. CBSSearch
-
Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1. We therefore interpret Rule 11 according to its plain meaning, see Pavelic & Leflore v. MarvelSearch
-
as a jurisdictional bar to further Rule 11 proceedings. See Johnson Page 496 U. S. 395 Chemical Co., Inc. v. HomeSearch
-
Rule 11 even after the plaintiff has filed a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. CanteenSearch
-
Greenberg v. SalaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Muthig v. BrantSearch
-
Sprague v. TiconicSearch
-
a federal court could consider an award of counsel fees. White v. NewSearch
-
that is not part of the original action. Bray v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 423 U. S. 73 , 423 U. S. 75 (1975), quoting Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
impose a contempt sanction even after the action in which the contempt arose has been terminated. See United States v. MineSearch
-
Gompers v. Buck'sSearch
-
White v. NewSearch
-
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Airline Div.) v. AssociationSearch
-
Westmoreland v. CBSSearch
-
Rule 11 under a de novo standard, and the choice of sanction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Zaldivar v. LosSearch
-
rather, they apply a deferential standard to all issues raised by a Rule 11 violation. See Kale v. CombinedSearch
-
Teamsters Local Union No. 430 v. CementSearch
-
Stevens v. LawyersSearch
-
Thomas v. CapitalSearch
-
Century Products, Inc. v. SutterSearch
-
Mars Steel Corp. v. ContinentalSearch
-
Adamson v. BowenSearch
-
any district court determination that falls within a broad range of permissible conclusions. See, e.g., Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. IvesSearch
-
The Court has long noted the difficulty of distinguishing between legal and factual issues. See Pullman-Standard v. SwintSearch
-
United States v. OregonSearch
-
similar to those involved in determining negligence, which is generally reviewed deferentially. See Mars Steel Corp. v. ContinentalSearch
-
McAllister v. UnitedSearch
-
g., determining that Rule 11 sanctions could be imposed upon the signing attorney's law firm, see Pavelic & LeFlore v. MarvelSearch
-
U.S. supra, at 456 U. S. 287 . See also Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. WorthingtonSearch
-
Page 496 U. S. 403 Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
U.S. at 487 U. S. 559 -560, quoting Miller v. FentonSearch
-
Shaffer & Sandler 15. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
affirmance of the District Court's liability determination is consistent with the deferential standard we adopt today. v. FinallySearch
-
the decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the First and Seventh Circuits, see Page 496 U. S. 406 Muthig v. BrantSearch
-
Point Nantucket, Inc., 838 F.2d at 607, and Hays v. SonySearch
-
F.2d 412, 419-420 (CA7 1988), and conflicted with the decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, see Basch v. WestinghouseSearch
-
Corp., 777 F.2d 165, 175 (CA4 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1108 (1986), and Orange Production Credit Assn. v. FrontlineSearch
-
opponent's attorney's fee would be likely to chill all but the bravest litigants from taking an appeal. See Webster v. SowdersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial