Skip to main content
· 1/9/1991

Jack C. Smith v. Anthony M. Frank

Citations

  • 923 F.2d 139
  • 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 322
  • 18 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 527
  • 91 Daily Journal DAR 384
  • 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 149
  • 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,492
  • 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1321
  • 1991 WL 826

How courts have described this case

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

  • “For 11 violations of the local rules, sanctions may be imposed including, in appropriate cases, striking the 12 offending pleading”
  • “For 15 violations of the local rules, sanctions may be imposed including, in appropriate cases, striking the 16 offending pleading.”
  • “[L]ocal rules should not be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of the district court, but instead should merely regulate the practice within the court.”
  • “For violations of the local rules, sanctions may be imposed . . . .”
  • “For violations of the local 21 rules, sanctions may be imposed[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson, Trott, Stephens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.