Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
- Decided
- August 2, 1991
- Docket
- 90-256
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,250 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part (not yet verified) · Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
What later courts said
- holding that district courts retain the "inherent power” to impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, where a litigant has engaged in bad-faith conduct — Lea Cordoba v. Dillard's Inc. (2005)
- recognizing that a district court has inherent powers to sanction a party by awarding the other side attorney, fees and related expenses — Conner v. Travis County (2000)
- recognizing that district courts have the inherent power to “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process” — Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. v. Nichols (2008)
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
Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to explore the scope of the inherent power of a federal court to sanction a litigant for bad-faith conduct. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether the District Court, sitting in diversity, properly invoked its inherent power in assessing as a sanction for a party’s bad-faith conduct attorney’s fees and related expenses paid by the party’s opponent to its attorneys. We hold that the District Court acted Within its discretion, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)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.