13 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 7,003 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the federal sanctions provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, "and the various sanctioning provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" do not "reflect a legislative intent to displace the inherent power" (footnote omitted)
  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper

    447 U.S. 752 (1980)   Cited 2,372 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”
  3. Hutto v. Finney

    437 U.S. 678 (1978)   Cited 2,140 times
    Holding that, in the context of institutional reform litigation, the district court's "exercise of discretion . . . is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge's years of experience with the problem at hand"
  4. First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Under

    307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that the Ohio statute providing for attorney's fees is procedural and thus inapplicable because it is "based upon the conduct of the parties and the attorneys in filing and litigating claim," and moreover, conflicts with the procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)
  5. Scott v. Health

    234 F. App'x 341 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee's placement on paid administrative leave pending an investigation did not amount to retaliation
  6. Universal Oil Co. v. Root Rfg. Co.

    328 U.S. 575 (1946)   Cited 216 times
    Holding that federal courts have inherent power to investigate whether a judgment was obtained by fraud
  7. Jones v. Illinois Central R. Co.

    617 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 77 times
    Affirming district court's imposition of sanction under § 1927 for attorney's withholding responsive documents and making misrepresentations regarding their existence
  8. Banner v. City of Flint

    99 F. App'x 29 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that it is permissible for a district court to consider evidence that was not before the magistrate judge
  9. KCI U.S., Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc.

    CASE NO. 1:14CV549 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 16, 2018)

    CASE NO. 1:14CV549 07-16-2018 KCI USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE ESSENTIALS, INC., et al., Defendants. PEARSON, J. JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 333] Pending is Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion for Sanctions Against Interested Party, Cavitch Familo & Durkin Co., LPA (the "Cavitch Firm"). ECF No. 333. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3) and 37(b)(2)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court's inherent authority, Plaintiff moves for sanctions

  10. Grinnell Bros., Inc. v. Touche Ross Co.

    655 F.2d 725 (6th Cir. 1981)   Cited 12 times
    In Grinnell, however, the district court did not simply fail to determine whether the sanctioned party had acted in bad faith, but rather specifically held that there was no bad faith on the part of the sanctioned party and consequently premised its award upon its inherent power to order such a recovery in the interest of justice.
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 64,551 times   480 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 7,997 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)
  13. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 7,610 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct