Supreme Court· 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

Cited by

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

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Willy v. Coastal Corp.

4 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.