Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
- Decided
- June 11, 1990
- Docket
- 89-275
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,510 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, superseded on other grounds (6 of 31 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Flowrider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc.
What later courts said
- holding that a district court’s legal conclusion that counsel violated Rule 11 is reviewed for abuse of discretion — Lea Cordoba v. Dillard's Inc. (2005)
- holding that the purpose of Rule 11 “is to deter baseless filings in district court” — Millicent Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State University (2017)
- holding that federal court retains jurisdiction over collateral issues after action is voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 — (untitled) (1998)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*388] Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents three issues related to the application of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: whether a district court may impose Rule 11 sanctions on a plaintiff who has voluntarily dismissed his complaint pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; what constitutes the appropriate standard of appellate review of a district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions; and whether Rule 11 authorizes awards of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal of a Rule 11 sanction.[*]
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.