D'AMARIO v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that sanctions under Rule 11 were inappropriate because, among other things, “Rule 26(f) and not Rule 11 would be the applicable rule for assessing compliance with certification standards” of discovery requests, responses, and objections
• noting that in determining whether to sanction the state for the 1994 signing of an objection to a discovery request, the 1995 amended version of Rule 11 would be inapplicable and the state's conduct would be judged in light of Rule 11 as it existed in 1994

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).