Determan v. Sandoval (In Re Sandoval)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the court’s reasoning in Perroton 16 applies equally to sanctioning authority under section 1927
• holding that BAP “seemingly lacks authority” under § 1927 to award sanctions
• fee 16 disgorgement ordered by predecessor counsel when successor 17 counsel performed many services to “fix” various problems with a 18 chapter 13 case
• fee 16 disgorgement ordered by predecessor counsel when successor 17 counsel performed many services to “fix” various problems with a 18 chapter 13 case
• although attorney was on notice that debtors had requested sanctions for filing of frivolous appeal, he was not on notice that Rule 9011 sanctions for failure to make reasonable inquiry were contemplated
• extending Perroton to include the BAP

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).