Coghlan v. Starkey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that this court has the inherent power to sanction litigants for frivolous or repetitive filings
• holding that this court has the inherent power to sanction litigants for frivolous or repetitive filings
• holding although client is ultimately responsible for single costs, burden of sanctions would be placed on attorney
• explaining that federal courts have the inherent power to sanction litigants for frivolous or repetitive filings
• noting that “ill purpose is in no way a necessary element for imposition of sanctions under Rule 38”
• noting that courts may “assess [Rule 38] sanctions against offending counsel, alone or jointly with the client, without reliance upon any authority other than Rule 38”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).