David M. Fink v. James H. Gomez, Director, Diana Carloni Nourse

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that reckless misstatements of law or fact made in an attempt to influence or manipulate proceedings to gain a tactical advantage are sanctionable
• holding that sanctions are available under the court’s inherent authority “if the court specifically finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith”
• holding that “reckless misstatements of law 3 and fact, when coupled with an improper purpose . . . are 4 sanctionable under a court's inherent power.”
• holding that “an attorney’s reckless misstatements of law and fact” are “sanctionable under a court’s inherent power,” when coupled with “an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose”
• noting that “mere recklessness, without more, does not justify sanctions under a court’s inherent power”
• noting that under 7 § 1927 “sanctions are available if the court specifically finds bad faith or conduct 8 tantamount to bad faith”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).