Gary v. Braddock Cemetery

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction but was nevertheless required to resolve a Rule 11 application
• noting that Pennsylvania does not recognize a private action for damages stemming from an alleged violation of the state constitution
• remanding for district court to rule on Rule 11 motion that had been dismissed without prejudice but was renewed and pending when the court entered final judgment
• “Requiring Rule 11 motions to be filed before final judgment is entered accomplishes nothing unless we are able to resolve any challenge to the grant or denial of Rule 11 sanctions when we rule on the merits of the final judgment.”
• “Our review of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rooker–Feldman is plenary.”
• “counsel seeking Rule 11 sanctions must file their motions before entry of final judgment in the district court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).