Dura Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania Business Corporation, in 89-3005 v. Rothbury Investments, Ltd., a Canadian Corporation, in 89-3023

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed only \in the exceptional circumstance where the claim or motion is patently unmeritorious or frivolous.\
• Consent Order filed within time prescribed to file notice of appeal served as “functional equivalent” of Rule 3(c) requirements
• Rule 11 evaluation includes question of whether pleading was based on plausible view of the law
• Consent Order filed by the appellants within the time prescribed to file a notice of appeal served as the \functional equivalent\ of what Rule 3(c) required such that the technical failure of the actual notice of appeal was not a bar to jurisdiction
• Consent Order filed by the appellants within the time prescribed to file a notice of appeal served as the “functional equivalent” of what Rule 3(e) required such that the technical failure of the actual notice of appeal was not a bar to jurisdiction
• Consent Order filed by the appellants within the time prescribed to file a notice of appeal served as the “functional equivalent” of what Rule 3(e) required such that the technical failure of the actual notice of appeal was not a bar to jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).