Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc. v. Scivantage

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that court’s factual findings “must be supported by a high degree of specificity”
• stating that “inherent-power sanctions are appropriate only if there is clear evidence that the conduct at issue is (1) entirely without color and (2
• explaining that, whereas “[p]unitive fines and imprisonment are the common tools of the criminal law,” “[t]ools of attorney discipline, such as reprimands, are not traditional criminal punishments”
• holding as to reprimands “that attorneys need not be given the full rights required in a criminal trial before the court may impose such nonmonetary disciplinary sanctions for litigation misconduct”
• explaining that, in the context of sanctions, “[b]ad faith is personal” (quotation marks omitted)
• reversing sanctions imposed against large law firm when there was no evidence that firm acted in bad faith

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).