40 Cited authorities

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
554 U.S. 471 (2008) Cited 1,862 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
447 U.S. 752 (1980) Cited 2,913 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”
Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc.
90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,305 times
Holding that motions for reconsideration do not provide an opportunity to litigate previously rejected arguments
Harrington v. City of Chicago
433 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 675 times
Holding that altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible where the movant clearly establishes that there is newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or fact
Romo v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
250 F.3d 1119 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 337 times
Holding that "federal courts may apply state procedural rules to pre-removal conduct"
Dal Pozzo v. Basic Machinery Co.
463 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reckless indifference to the law" constitutes objective bad faith and can thus warrant § 1927 sanctions; "[i]f a lawyer pursues a path that a reasonably careful attorney would have known, after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound, the conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatious"
Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc.
440 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 180 times
Holding sanctions under § 1927 may be awarded "when the entire course of the proceedings was unwarranted" or "when an attorney acts recklessly or with indifference to the law," "is cavalier or bent on misleading the court," or "intentionally acts without a plausible basis"
In re TCI Ltd.
769 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1985) Cited 297 times
Holding that "[i]f a lawyer pursues a path that a reasonably careful attorney would have known, after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound, the conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatious."
Walter v. Fiorenzo
840 F.2d 427 (7th Cir. 1988) Cited 262 times
Holding that an award of fees under § 1927 is given to the discretion of the court and so the standard of review is deferential
Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Service, Inc.
771 F.2d 194 (7th Cir. 1985) Cited 281 times
Holding that "a telephone call to an identified suspect from a detective investigating a charge of vandalism [and requesting the suspect come to the station to answer charges] [does not] constitute[] such a restrain on the suspect's freedom that his coming to the station house is anything other than voluntary action"
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 44,888 times 69 Legal Analyses
Providing that a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment
Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Cited 9,014 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

Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Smith et al

40 Cited authorities

Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"

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”

Holding that motions for reconsideration do not provide an opportunity to litigate previously rejected arguments

Holding that altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible where the movant clearly establishes that there is newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or fact

Holding that "federal courts may apply state procedural rules to pre-removal conduct"

Holding that "reckless indifference to the law" constitutes objective bad faith and can thus warrant § 1927 sanctions; "[i]f a lawyer pursues a path that a reasonably careful attorney would have known, after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound, the conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatious"

Holding sanctions under § 1927 may be awarded "when the entire course of the proceedings was unwarranted" or "when an attorney acts recklessly or with indifference to the law," "is cavalier or bent on misleading the court," or "intentionally acts without a plausible basis"

Holding that "[i]f a lawyer pursues a path that a reasonably careful attorney would have known, after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound, the conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatious."

Holding that an award of fees under § 1927 is given to the discretion of the court and so the standard of review is deferential

Providing that a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment

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