Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (1991) Cited 9,510 times 14 Legal AnalysesHolding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"
Lewis v. Lynn
236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 822 timesHolding non-appearing parties may “benefit from the appearing defendant's favorable summary judgment motion”
Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Savings Ass'n
874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989) Cited 763 timesFinding no abuse of discretion in district court's refusal to enter default judgment against defendant that filed motion to dismiss one day outside the allotted period for filing an answer
Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd.
682 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 216 timesHolding that Rule 11's safe harbor provision "is a strict procedural requirement"
U.S. for Use of M-Co Const. v. Shipco General
814 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1987) Cited 413 timesHolding that a default judgment is a judgment on the merits conclusively establishing a defendant's liability
In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP
323 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 212 timesHolding that, where sanctions are "initiated by the District Court long after [the party] ha an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission . . . a 'bad faith' standard, applicable for contempt proceedings, is especially appropriate . . . ."
Roth v. Green
466 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 174 timesHolding that district court did not abuse its discretion when finding that plaintiffs' attorney violated Rule 11 because there were "a host of legal impediments to [plaintiffs] prevailing on their claims," including that "the majority of the defendants had, at best, only tangential relationships to" plaintiffs' claims and plaintiffs' counsel ignored controlling precedent
McIntosh v. Antonino
71 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1995) Cited 183 timesHolding that Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "adequately covers" the commencement of an action in federal court and thus applies to section 1983 claims
Associated Indem. v. Fairchild Industries
961 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 175 timesHolding contingent liability is proper subject of declaratory action if contingency is likely to occur
Cadle Co. v. Moore (In re Moore)
739 F.3d 724 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 85 timesHolding that bankruptcy court had constitutional authority to enter final judgment in adversary proceeding because resolution of state-law claims was necessary to adjudication of a proof of claim in the claims allowance process, which is part and parcel of the consideration and confirmation of a reorganization plan
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 37,332 times 149 Legal AnalysesHolding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney