National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that dismissal was proper sanction under Rule 37 where respondents failed to answer interrogatories for seventeen months
• concluding that dismissal of plaintiffs complaint was appropriate due to the actions of both the client and its attorney
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing case with prejudice where district court warned attorney of potential sanction
• holding that plaintiffs engaged in bad faith where the court expressly directed them to perform an act, but they failed to perform
• holding that the purpose of sanctions is to deter those tempted to engage in misconduct
• noting that Rule 37 sanctions may be applied “to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).