BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a law firm is not a “person” under § 1927 because a law firm cannot be “admitted” to “conduct cases” in court
• noting that while dicta may be nonbinding on future panels, it still may be followed as persuasive authority
• explaining that “[h]arassing the opposing party, delaying or disrupting litigation, hampering the enforcement of a court order, or making improper use of the courts are all examples of the sorts of conduct that will support a finding of bad faith or improper purpose”
• explaining that inherent-power sanctions require bad faith conduct
• “[O]ne panel of [the Sixth Circuit] is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion.” (quoting United States v. Burroughs, 5 F.3d 192, 194 (6th Cir. 1993))
• “Although dictum is unnecessary to the decision, it may nevertheless be followed if ‘sufficiently persuasive.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).