Robbins v. Tennessee

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 applies an objective standard of reasonableness when deciding whether the signer of a motion has crossed the line between zealous advocacy and plain pettifoggery
• holding that a court may order sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers where a party or attorney “has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that § 1927 “invites attention to a course of conduct, and imposes a continuing obligation on attorneys to avoid dilatory tac- tics”
• noting that “[s]anctions imposed under a court’s inherent power . . . depend not on which party wins the lawsuit, but on how the parties conduct[ed] themselves during the litigation”
• requiring “a particularized showing of bad faith to justify the use of the court’s inherent power”
• relying on “Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).