Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Nelson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “substantial justification” under Rule 37 means “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person”
• explaining that a sanctioned attorney may not take an interlocutory appeal for discovery sanctions, counsel must wait until the conclusion of the underlying lawsuit to appeal the discovery sanctions.
• stating that “[a]n opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or evidentiary hearing on the issue; the opportunity to fully brief the issue is sufficient to satisfy due process requirements”
• relying on Grider 28 v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 580 F.3d 119 (3d Cir.2009) and Maynard v. Nygren, 1 332 F.3d 462 (7th Cir.2003)
• reviewing substantial justification determination under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) for abuse of discretion
• reviewing the imposition of a Rule 37(b)(2) sanction for abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).