Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 8/13/1992

Sassower v. Field

Citations

  • 973 F.2d 75
  • 1992 WL 194514

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that trial court has inherent authority to impose attorney’s fees on pro se litigant acting in bad faith or for oppressive reasons
  • holding that § 1927 cannot be used to impose sanctions on non-lawyer litigants, but also holding that § 1927 can impose sanctions on a pro se litigant who is also a lawyer
  • finding that § 1927 cannot be applied to non-lawyer pro se litigants because they do not fall within the meaning of “admitted” in the statute
  • finding that defendants could not make a showing that the suit was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” when the district judge already recognized that it pled a prima facie case of discrimination and presented a factual dispute for the jury”
  • affirming financial sanction on pro se plaintiff for vexatious litigation conduct pursuant to district court’s inherent sanction authority
  • finding an award of attorney’s fees as sanctions against a pro se plaintiff was appropriate where the plaintiff had repeatedly utilized “entirely vexatious and oppressive tactics”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jon, Lumbard, Newman, Winter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Sassower v. Field

6 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.