Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises
498 U.S. 533 (1991) Cited 899 timesHolding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was not a fee-shifting provision because Rule 11 sanctions were not “tied to the outcome of litigation,” instead turning on whether a “specific filing” was well founded, and shifted the costs of a “discrete” portion of the litigation rather than the litigation as a whole
Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc.
788 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 549 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion
Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
935 F.2d 604 (3d Cir. 1991) Cited 142 timesHolding "that whenever discovery in a case has proceeded substantially ..., the presumption against dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens greatly increases"
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 35,655 times 139 Legal AnalysesHolding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney