Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (1991) Cited 9,221 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"
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
447 U.S. 752 (1980) Cited 2,850 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
In re Keegan Management, Securities Litigation
78 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 521 timesHolding § 1927 sanctions "must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith"
City Equities Anaheim, Ltd. v. Lincoln Plaza Development Co. (In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd.)
22 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 222 timesHolding summary enforcement improper where material facts disputed
Optyl Eyewear Fashion v. Style Companies
760 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 264 timesHolding that express findings were not necessary where the record supports a finding that the sanctioned attorney acted in bad faith
Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Industries
352 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 128 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "ample evidence of actual confusion" was the most important support for district court's finding of willfulness
Estate of Blas v. Winkler
792 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 130 timesHolding that section 1927 sanctions are justified "only on a showing of the attorney's recklessness or bad faith"
United States v. Blodgett
709 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 124 timesHolding that sanctions under § 1927 are available when an attorney recklessly or in bad faith multiplies the proceedings
Page v. Grandview Marketing, Inc.
2:09-cv-01150-RCJ-GWF (D. Nev. Nov. 29, 2010) Cited 1 times2:09-cv-01150-RCJ-GWF. November 29, 2010 ORDER ROBERT JONES, District Judge Plaintiffs Eddie Page, Ian Blankenship, Thomas Levandoski, Michael Morctti, and Joyce Vance sued Defendants Grandview Marketing, Inc. and Kevin M. Sheehan for failure to pay overtime wages. Most of the present motions concern whether Plaintiffs' attorneys properly continued to litigate this case on behalf of Blankenship. Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 87), Blankenship's Motion
Comcast of Illinois X, LLC v. Kwak
CV No. 03-00962 DAE-PAL (D. Nev. Jul. 14, 2010)CV No. 03-00962 DAE-PAL. July 14, 2010 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DAVID EZRA, Chief Judge On June 18, 2010, the Court heard Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Jung Kwak. Jeffrey R. Platt, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of Plaintiff; Defendant did not appear at the hearing. After reviewing the motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. # 159.) Three calls were made in the hallway for Defendant
Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Cited 8,839 times 81 Legal AnalysesGranting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct
Section 505 - Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
17 U.S.C. § 505 Cited 2,974 times 70 Legal AnalysesGranting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases
Section 18.010 - Award of attorney's fees
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010 Cited 541 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding for attorney fee awards to prevailing parties