William T. Divane, Jr. v. Krull Electric Co., Inc., and John J. Curry, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a court that imposes sanctions requested by motion without adhering to the twenty-one day “safe harbor” provision abuses its discretion.
• stating that the purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to deter rather than to compensate
• stating that the purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to deter rather than to compensate
• noting that the provision was designed to give the offending party a “full and fair opportunity to respond and show cause before sanctions are imposed”
• explaining that, “[i]n using attorneys’ fees to determine the amount of sanctions, that amount must be limited to fees incurred as a direct result of” the Rule 11 violation
• explaining that Rule 11(c) was designed to ensure due process and give the potentially offending party a “full and fair opportunity to respond and show cause before sanctions are imposed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).