Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

Holding 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"

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop ex rel. Peters

Holding that a motion for reconsideration "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation"

Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods

Holding a conflict exists where, "when fairly construed, the scope of [a Rule] is ‘sufficiently broad’ to cause a ‘direct collision’ with the state law or, implicitly, to ‘control the issue’ before the court, thereby leaving no room for the operation of that law"

In re Keegan Management, Securities Litigation

Holding § 1927 sanctions "must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith"

Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles

Holding that Rule 11 "does not repeal or modify existing authority of federal courts to deal with abuses of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927"

MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc.

Holding that a malicious prosecution action originally filed in federal court was "completely preempted by the structure and purpose of the Bankruptcy Code"

In re Larry's Apartment, L.L.C

Holding that a question lurked in the record of a previous case because “we had no occasion to consider” it

International Business Machines Corp. v. Levin

Holding that IBM was a present client of a law firm even though the law firm had no specific assignment on hand the day the complaint was filed and despite the fact that the law firm worked on a fee for services basis and was not under any retainer agreement with IBM

Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

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

Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

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

Rule 38 - Frivolous Appeal-Damages and Costs

Allowing the court to award damages and costs for a frivolous appeal upon "a separately filed motion"

Section 12-341.01 - Recovery of attorney fees

Permitting an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the successful party in a contested action arising out of express or implied contract

Rule 82 - Attorney's Fees