Rogers v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a pleading is not “well grounded in fact” when there is “no factual basis” for the allegations made
• holding Rule 1 l's factual inquiry requirement violated only when no factual basis for allegations
• holding a plaintiff must engage in prefiling investigation to develop “some information to support the allegations in the complaint”
• holding Rule 11's factual inquiry requirement violated only when no factual basis for allegations
• noting that a violation of Rule 11 occurs \where the complaint has 'absolutely'no chance of success under the existing precedent’\ (quoting Cleveland Demolition Co. v. Azcon Scrap Corp., 827 F.2d 984, 987 (4th Cir. 1987))
• finding that as long as an attorney possesses information from which it is possible to at least “draw an inference,” even a “weak one,” an attorney's factual allegations are placed beyond the reach of Rule 11 sanctions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).