30 Cited authorities

Fox v. Vice
563 U.S. 826 (2011) Cited 1,802 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"
Hughes v. Rowe
449 U.S. 5 (1980) Cited 6,636 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that pleadings drafted by pro se litigants should be held to a lesser standard than those drafted by lawyers since "[a]n unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims"
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
434 U.S. 412 (1978) Cited 3,658 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith
F. D. Rich Co., v. Industrial Lumber Co.
417 U.S. 116 (1974) Cited 976 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Miller Act requirement that suits be brought in specific federal courts was “merely a venue requirement” that could be waived
Oliveri v. Thompson
803 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 919 times
Holding that imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and district court's inherent power requires showing of bad faith
Schlaifer Nance Co., Inc. v. Est. of Warhol
194 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 495 times
Holding that a motion describing the sanctionable conduct and the source of authority for the sanction provided notice
U.S. v. International Broth. of Teamsters
948 F.2d 1338 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 433 times
Holding that a court may order sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers where a party or attorney "has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons"
Enmon v. Prospect Capital Corp.
675 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 162 times
Holding that "sanctions may be warranted even where bad-faith conduct does not disrupt the litigation before the sanctioning court"
Cruz v. Savage
896 F.2d 626 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 202 times
Holding that the litigation of one due process claim was "a vexatious, time consuming exercise which bore no fruit" because counsel ignored the due process claim and used the trial to appeal an administrative hearing
Ransmeier v. Mariani
718 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 104 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "a veteran of federal court litigation" responsible for the egregious conduct of her attorney where "she worked closely with [him]"
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,463 times 143 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 36,015 times 145 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,848 times 43 Legal Analyses
Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)
Rule 28 - Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 Cited 18,417 times 7 Legal Analyses
Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities
Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Cited 8,863 times 81 Legal Analyses
Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

Jimenez et al v. The City Of New York , et al

30 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"

Holding that pleadings drafted by pro se litigants should be held to a lesser standard than those drafted by lawyers since "[a]n unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims"

Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith

Holding that a Miller Act requirement that suits be brought in specific federal courts was “merely a venue requirement” that could be waived

Holding that imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and district court's inherent power requires showing of bad faith

Holding that a motion describing the sanctionable conduct and the source of authority for the sanction provided notice

Holding that a court may order sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers where a party or attorney "has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons"

Holding that "sanctions may be warranted even where bad-faith conduct does not disrupt the litigation before the sanctioning court"

Holding that the litigation of one due process claim was "a vexatious, time consuming exercise which bore no fruit" because counsel ignored the due process claim and used the trial to appeal an administrative hearing

Holding "a veteran of federal court litigation" responsible for the egregious conduct of her attorney where "she worked closely with [him]"

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)

Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities

Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct