United States v. Nabepanha

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court “cannot express its disappointment that it has been necessary to impose sanctions upon any party or attorney appearing before it”
• observing that it would be “hypertechnical and nonsensical” to conclude that local counsel has no responsibility for sanctionable filings that include local counsel’s name merely because local counsel did not physically sign the filings
• “Rule 11 says nothing about requiring service of the brief in support of a Rule 11 motion to trigger the twenty-one day ‘safe harbor.’ ”
• “The duty of a party to assess the viability of a claim is not measured solely at the time that the claim was filed, but is a continuing one”
• “The duty of a party to assess the viability of a claim is not measured solely at the time that the claim was filed, but is a continuing one.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).