FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1523345794> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1523345794 abstract "This article previews the issues and arguments in Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., on the Supreme Court’s 1990-91 appellate docket. The NASCO case raises two central issues. The first issue is whether federal courts have an power to award attorney fees against a party who abuses the court's processes, apart from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or any other statutory provision allowing an award of attorney fees (see 28 U.S.C. § 1927). The second issue is whether a federal court may make such an attorney fee award in a federal diversity case, when state law does not give such power to a state court judge. A third, subsidiary issue centers on the limitations of such federal court and whether the federal district court abused its authority in fully awarding attorney fees against Chambers.The Supreme Court again this term turns its attention to the problem of awarding attorney fees as a sanction against abusive litigant behavior. The general issue of awarding attorney fees as a sanction persistently raises the hackles of practitioners who view it as a violation of the so-called American rule against fee-shifting as a penalty for losing a lawsuit or abusing court process.The NASCO case raises two interesting variations of the attorney fee problem. The Supreme Court is being asked whether federal courts have an inherent power, apart from procedural statutes and rules, to order the payment of attorney fees as a result of abusive litigant behavior. And the Supreme Court is being asked whether an attorney fee sanction may be imposed not for abusive attorney conduct, but for the abusive behavior of the attorney's client. When coupled with this term's decision in Business Guides Inc. v Chromatic Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court will be announcing its expectations concerning the boundaries of permissible litigant behavior in federal court.The NASCO case presents an interesting intersection of three doctrinally troublesome aspects of American law: the problem of the powers of federal courts; the problem of fee-shifting as a sanction; and the problem of applicable law under the so-called Erie doctrine. At the broadest theoretical level, the NASCO case confronts the Supreme Court with an intricately knotty problem concerning the scope of federal court power to control litigation in the federal judiciary. At the mundane level, NASCO will instruct lawyers and clients about the boundaries ofacceptable behavior in the federal courts.The NASCO case first implicates the doctrine of the powers of federal courts. For reasons not pertinent to the Supreme Court appeal, the lower federal courts concluded that the actions by the parties in this case did not come within the ambit of sanctioning power under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, another provision supplying a basis for sanctions. The federal court relied instead on a doctrine of derived from common law, to impose sanctions.Finally, if the Supreme Court determines that federal courts do indeed have the power to impose an attorney fee sanction tinder the common-law, bad-faith exception for abusive litigation tactics, it has been called upon to review whether the award in this case was based on proper legal standards and factual findings. This portion of the case raises no novel issues or analysis, and could be dispatched with alacrity under prevailing authority." @default.
• W1523345794 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1523345794 creator A5038362183 @default.
• W1523345794 date "1991-01-01" @default.
• W1523345794 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1523345794 title "The $1.5 Million Sanction: Testing the Inherent Power of Federal Courts to Sanction Parties by Awarding Attorney Fees" @default.
• W1523345794 hasPublicationYear "1991" @default.
• W1523345794 type Work @default.
• W1523345794 sameAs 1523345794 @default.
• W1523345794 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1523345794 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1523345794 hasAuthorship W1523345794A5038362183 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C2777134139 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C2780156021 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C2780858371 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C46415393 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C80964368 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C158129432 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C160735492 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C17319257 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C17744445 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C199539241 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C2777134139 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C2778272461 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C2780156021 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C2780858371 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C46415393 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C80964368 @default.
• W1523345794 hasConceptScore W1523345794C87501996 @default.
• W1523345794 hasOpenAccess W1523345794 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W1496105139 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W1511184997 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W1539085690 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W160288129 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W1628706995 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W1989652236 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W2238665797 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W2262206300 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W254555521 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W2583184040 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W259013233 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W284520908 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W29922203 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W302217004 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W3123316665 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W3123880789 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W3213811790 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W345144884 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W72818983 @default.
• W1523345794 hasRelatedWork W79569735 @default.
• W1523345794 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1523345794 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1523345794 magId "1523345794" @default.
• W1523345794 workType "article" @default.