Skip to main content
· 3/3/1992

Willy v. Coastal Corp.

Citations

  • 503 U.S. 131
  • 112 S. Ct. 1076
  • 117 L. Ed. 2d 280
  • 1992 U.S. LEXIS 1521

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the \expansive language\ of Rule 81(c) \indicates a clear intent to have the [Federal] Rules... apply to all district court civil proceedings\
  • holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even though it was later found to lack jurisdiction over the underlying case
  • holding that a district court could constitutionally impose Rule 11 sanctions in a case in which was later determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
  • holding that the district court had the authority to impose sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 in a case in which it later determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
  • holding that a district court may impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 in a case in which the district court is later determined to be without subject matter jurisdiction
  • holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rehnquist

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.