Cooter and Gell Vs. Hartmarx

Decided On : Jun-11-1990

Court : US Supreme Court

LAW: Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11's, the Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 38, Rule 38, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 41, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rule Enabling Act's, Rule 11, Rule 23(e, Rule 66, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 41(a)(1, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 41(a, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rule 11, the Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 11 Revisited, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11's, Rule 11, Rule 38, Rule 11, Rule 38, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 38, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rules Enabling Act, Rule 11 and Rule 41(a)(1, Rule 41(a)(1, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, the Rules Enabling Act, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 11

GPE: U.S., U.S., Pp, the United States, Pp, Pp, Washington, D.C., the United States, the District of Columbia, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., the United States, the District of Columbia Circuit, the United States, the United States, pp, Vairo, the United States, the United States, U.S., United States, United States, U.S., Va., Cleveland, Ohio, New Hampshire, U.S., the District of Columbia Circuit, D.C., D.C., Los Angeles, North Carolina, United States, N.A., United States, U.S., the United States, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., D.C., U.S., the United States, Keeton

DATE: 1990, 1990, Feb. 20, 1990, June 11, 1990, CADC 1989, 1983, June, 1983, 1526, March, 1984, February, 1985, 1985, 1131, 1986, November, 1983, April, 1984, July, 1984, June, 1984, December, 1987, 3 1/2 years, Two months later, 1989, 1168, 1985, 2072, 1989, 1938, 2616-2617, 1988, 1983, 1985, 28, 31, 1987, 1073, 1076-1079, CA7 1987, 1988, 1987, CA1 1988, 1077, 1919, years, 13 (1982, 1975, 221 U. S. 418, 1911, 1947, 1943, 1942, 1951, 1938, 2363, 1971, 1983, March 9, 1982, 1988, 1174-1175, 1986, CA1 1988, 66, 1988, 1988, 1056, 1060, 1986, 1988, CA7 1989, 1988, 1985, 1982, 14-15, 2d ed. 1988, 45-49, 1989, 1982, months, 1952, 1971, 1954, 1989, 475 U. S. 709, 1986, 1988, 1985, 1013, 1015-1017, 1988, 1988, 14-15, today, CA7 1988, 1985, 1986, 1581, 1582-1583, 1986, 1984, 2d ed. 1989, 38, 1032, 1040, 1989, 1975, 1990, 1989, today, 1927, 20 years ago

ORG: U.S. Supreme Court Cooter & Gell, U.S. 384, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, Syllabus Respondents, District Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, The Court of Appeals, the District Court, the District Court, the Court of Appeals, District Court's, the Equal Access to Justice Act, EAJA, Pp, The Court of Appeals', the District Court, Pp, Rule l's, the Advisory Committee Note, Federal Rule of, the American Rule, D.C. 333, Court, Court, REHNQUIST, BRENNAN, WHITE, SCALIA, Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Danik, Inc., Hartmarx Corp., Cooter & Gell, Intercontinental, the Robinson-Patman Act, the District Court, Intercontinental, Danik, Intercontinental on Danik's, Inc., Intercontinental Apparel, Inc., D.C. 233, Intercontinental Apparel, Danik, Inc., D.C. 327, Hart, Schaffner & Marx, Hickey-Freeman Co., Hart, Schaffner & Marx, the District Court, the District Court, The District Court, the District Court, the District Court, the District Court, Hart, Schaffner & Marx, the District Court, Eastern, the District Court, Danik, The Court of Appeals, Inc., Hartmarx Corp., D.C. 333, the Court of Appeals, the District Court, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals, the District Court's, the District Court, the Court of Appeals, CBS, Inc., D.C. 255, the Court of Appeals, Court, Magistrates, Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fed, Pavelic & Leflore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, sham, The Advisory Committee, the New Federal Rule 11, District Court, the District Court, Stipulation, the Circuit Courts, the Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit, Chemical Co., Inc., Home Care Products, Inc., See Szabo Food Service, Canteen Corp., Szabo Food Service, Inc., Federal Rule, Court, Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, White v. New Hampshire Dept, Employment Security, Stove & Range Co., Stove & Range Co., District Court's, Rule 41(a)(1, the Federal Rules, American Bar Association, Proceedings of the Institute on Federal Rules, the Advisory Committee on Rules for Civil Procedure, C. Wright &, Federal Practice, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, the District Court, the Advisory Committee, Employment Security, the Court of Appeals, the District Court's, The Court of Appeals, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, CBS, Inc., the Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit, Teamsters Local Union, Cement Express, U.S. 848, Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., Century Products, Inc., Mars Steel Corp., Continental Bank N.A., the Courts of Appeal, Inwood Laboratories, Inc., Ives Laboratories, Inc., C. Shaffer & P. Sandler, Shaffer & Sandler, American Judicature Society, the Third Circuit Task Force on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Burbank, Court, Oregon Medical Society, See Mars Steel Corp., Continental Bank, C. Wright &, Federal Practice, the District Court's, Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Pullman-Standard v. Swint, Icicle Seafoods, Worthington, the Court of Appeals, the District Court's, the District Court's, Pierce, Court, District Court's, the Equal Access to Justice Act, EAJA, EAJA, EAJA, Court, Court, Court, Court, Government, Shaffer & Sandler, Yale, Mars Steel Corp., Continental Bank N.A., Shaffer & Sandler, EAJA, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals, the District Court, the District Court's, the Court of Appeals, the District Court, the Courts of Appeals, Hays v. Sony Corp. of America, Basch, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Frontline Ventures Ltd., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, the Advisory Committee Note, Law of Torts § 41, the district court's, The Federal Rules of, Federal Rule of Appellate, American Judicature Society, the Third Circuit Task Force on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Burbank, the American Rule, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Wilderness Society, the Court of Appeals', the Court of Appeals', Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Browning-Ferris Industries, Court, Court, the Federal Rules, Court, Court, Court, Fed, the Federal Rules, Court

CARDINAL: 496, 89, 496, 11, 1, 41(a, 41(a)(1, 41(a)(1, one, 2, three, 3, 38, 277, 875, 890, three, 49, 15, 13, 245, 759, 959, 251, 784, two, two, One, one, 3-14, two, three, 16-17, 22, 24, only one, only four, 277, 875, 890, Three, 337, 875, 894, 338, 875, 895, two, 248, 770, 28, 11, at least one, two, one, 28, 575, two, 11, 118, 189, 191, 28, 576, 11, 41(a)(1, 1, 41(a)(2, 823, 823, 485, 822, 882, 885, 838, 600, 603, 823, 28, 451, 221, 41(a)(1, 41(a)(2, 1, 491, 37, 969, 41(a)(1, 350, 41(a)(1, 309, 9, 152, 41(a)(1, 41(a)(1, 41(a)(1, one, 41(a)(1, one, 97, 165, 192, 28, 576, 455, three, 274, 370, 373, 864, 173, 176, 248, 261, 770, 780, 823, 828, 861, 746, 430, 841, 488, 789, 836, 866, 872, 837, 247, 250, 928, 933, 855, 668, 673, 28, 576, two, 11, 52(a, 932, 9, 19, 456, 28, 487, 2, Two, 487, 487, 15, 97, 936, 487, three, 277, 339, 875, 896, 341, 875, 898, 838, 607, 847, 412, 419, 777, 165, 175, 476, 801, 264, 38, 9, 238.03[2, 38-13, 38, 11, 408, 846, 11, 15, 49, two, 11, two, 11, 41(a)(1, two, 41(a)(1, 41(a)(1, two, 41(a)(1, 11, 1, 2, 41(a)(1, 3, 28, 41(a)(1, 1, 1, 19, 2, 3

PERCENT: 496 U. S. 393, 496 U. S. 393, 496 U. S. 394, 496 U. S. 395 , 496 U. S., 496 U. S. 400 -402, 487 U. S. 552 , 496 U. S. 403, 496 U. S. 404, 496 U. S. 405 , 496 U. S., 496 U. S., 496 U. S. 409, 343 U. S. 326 , 487 U. S. 552 , 474 U. S. 104 , 492 U. S.

PERSON: 496 U. S. 397 , Petitioner, Pierce, Underwood, 496 U. S. 405 -409, Rule, J., BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, STEVENS, J., Intercontinental Apparel, Danik, Danik, Danik, Danik, Hickey-Freeman, Danik, Danik, Westmoreland, Rule Civ, Plaintiff, Subject, Johnson, Greenberg v. Sala, Muthig v. Brant Point Nantucket, Gompers v. Buck's, Gompers v. Buck's, Ann, Art, George Donworth, A. Miller, Walter Mansfield, White, Westmoreland, Zaldivar, Kale, Stevens, Adamson v. Bowen, Circuits, Rule Civ, Anderson v. Bessemer City, Rule Civ, A. Miller, McAllister, Pierce, Pierce, Pierce, Miller, Pierce, Pierce, Underwood , Muthig v. Brant Point Nantucket, Rule, W. Keeton, R. Keeton, D. Owens, Webster v. Sowders, Kelco Disposal, STEVENS, Parts IV

PRODUCT: Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule 41(a)(1, 757-758, Prosser, Rule 41(a)(1

NORP: Rules, Hartmarx, d., D.

MONEY: 61,917.99, 21,452.52, 10,701.26

ORDINAL: First, Second, Third, First, Second, first, first, second, First, second, Second, First, Seventh, 5th, First, second, first, Second

WORK_OF_ART: Violations of an, Circuits, American Judicature Society

FAC: 880, 880