Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chambers Vs. Nasco, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 06, 1991

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

79 entries 7 linked 72 unlinked
Show
  1. Anderson Vs. Dunn US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  2. Hutto Vs. Finney US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1978
  3. Guaranty Trust Co. Vs. York US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1945
  4. Roadway Express, Inc. Vs. Piper US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1980
  5. Gulf Oil Corp. Vs. Gilbert US Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1947
  6. Weinberger Vs. Romero-barcelo US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1982
  7. Hanna Vs. Plumer US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  8. Chambers v. Nasco
    Search
  9. Inc. - 501 U.S. 32 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Chambers v. Nasco
    Search
  10. Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) Chambers v. Nasco
    Search
  11. prohibits the shifting of attorney's fees in most cases, see Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  12. U. S. 260 , as when the party practices a fraud upon the court, Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root
    Search
  13. U. S. 580 , or delays or disrupts the litigation or hampers a court order's enforcement, Hutto v. Finney
    Search
  14. be imposed, without specifying which sanction is required. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
    Search
  15. conduct cannot be made subservient to any state policy without transgressing the boundaries set out in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  16. U. S. 64 , Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
    Search
  17. U. S. 99 , and Hanna v. Plumer
    Search
  18. NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu
    Search
  19. properties to a third person, Gray made no mention of the recordation of the deeds earlier that morning. NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu
    Search
  20. fine against Chambers personally. NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu
    Search
  21. La.1984). Two subsequent appeals from the contempt order were dismissed for lack of a final judgment. See NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu
    Search
  22. whether further sanctions should be imposed for the manner in which the litigation had been conducted. NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu
    Search
  23. Ibid. The Court of Appeals affirmed. NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu
    Search
  24. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
    Search
  25. Link v. Wabash
    Search
  26. Young v. United
    Search
  27. to vacate its own judgment upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire
    Search
  28. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root
    Search
  29. court's inherent power. The court may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial. Illinois v. Allen
    Search
  30. U. S. 337 (1970). It may dismiss an action on grounds of forum non conveniens, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
    Search
  31. of an assessment of attorney's fees is undoubtedly within a court's inherent power as well. Ibid. See also Hutto v. Finney
    Search
  32. prohibits fee-shifting in most cases. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  33. derives not from a court's power to control litigants, but from its historic equity jurisdiction, see Sprague v. Ticonic
    Search
  34. Id. at 421 U. S. 258 (quoting Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier
    Search
  35. court to impose as part of the fine attorney's fees representing the entire cost of the litigation. Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing
    Search
  36. Alyeska, supra, 421 U.S. at 421 U. S. 258 -259 (quoting F.D. Rich Co. v. United
    Search
  37. States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U. S. 116 , 417 U. S. 129 (1974)). See also Hall v. Cole
    Search
  38. Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  39. See Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic
    Search
  40. such as the scope of a court's inherent power. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
    Search
  41. and Rule 11, the other sanctioning mechanisms invoked by NASCO here. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  42. Zaldivar v. Los
    Search
  43. the many state court decisions sustaining such dismissals, but even from language in this Court's opinion in Redfield v. Ystalyfera
    Search
  44. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
    Search
  45. party in certain classes of litigation to recover fees. That was precisely the issue in People of Sioux County v. National
    Search
  46. Only when there is a conflict between state and federal substantive law are the concerns of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  47. U. S. 64 (1938), at issue. As we explained in Hanna v. Plumer
    Search
  48. test of Erie and Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
    Search
  49. of the court's orders and the attempt to defraud the court itself. In our recent decision in Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic
    Search
  50. Hall, 412 U.S. at 412 U. S. 4 -5. Cf. Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial