Esch v. Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, in the absence of an explanation of the “reasons for imposing the sanction,” “our normal procedure would be to remand the award of sanctions to the superior court for entry of findings”
• stating that, in the absence of an explanation of the “reasons for imposing the sanction,” “our normal procedure would be to remand the award of sanctions to the superior court for entry of findings”
• holding the superior court had erred in imposing a fine under an earlier version of Rule 95 because it had \failed to give specific notice of its intention to impose a sanction\ as required by the rule
• court could not sanction attorney under its inherent power without a finding that the attorney was in contempt
• “We decline to remand in this case ... because we find no evidence in the record which could possibly support an entry of sanctions under Rule 11.”
• “We decline to remand in this case . . . because we find no evidence in the record which could possibly support an entry of sanctions under Rule 11.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).