Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co., 746 F.2d 1419 (10th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co., 746 F.2d 1419 (10th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 24 Collier bankr.cas.2d 562, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,741 in Re Edward R. Fitzsimmons, Debtor. Edward R. Fitzsimmons v. M. Nolden, Tr. of the Chapter 7 Est. of Edward R. Fitzsimmons Chemgold, Inc., a California Corp. Trabefin, A.G., a Swiss Corp., Trabefin, A.G., a Swiss Corp. v. M. Nolden, Tr. of the Chapter 7 Est. of Edward R. Fitzsimmons Edward R. Fitzsimmons Chemgold, Inc., a California Corp., 920 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1990)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1420 Requiring explanation for sanctions when fault is attorney's11 citing casesremanding for explanation of dismissal where fault was attorney's alone2 citing courts put it this way · 10 listed here
  • Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1990).published 3 cites
    See id. (“[T]he selection of the sanction to be imposed must take into consideration the impact of the sanction and the alternatives available to achieve assessment of the penalties in conformity with fault.”) (emphasis added).
  • E. Colorado v. Agrigenetics, No. 21-1057 (10th Cir. Dec. 23, 2021).unpublished
    Co., 769 F.2d 644, 645 (10th Cir. 1985); In re Russell, 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir. 1984).
  • Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Assoc., No. 16-1348 (10th Cir. Mar. 23, 2018).published
    Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co., 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
  • Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy, 190 F.R.D. 587 (D. Kan. 1999).published
    Who Should Bear the Sanctions To assist in appellate review, the court must explain “why the particular circumstances demonstrate^] a need for the sanctions imposed.” Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co. (In re Russell), 746 F.2d 1419,…
  • In Re Bill W. Rains, Also Known as Billy Wayne Rains, Debtor. Dale A. Ruplinger v. Bill W. Rains, Also Known as Billy Wayne Rains, 946 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1991).published
    Any choice includes monetary sanctions.” Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co. (In re Russell), 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir.1984); see also Meade, 841 F.2d at 1520 n. 7 (citing cases requiring consideration of less drastic alternatives…
  • Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437 (10th Cir. 1990).published 2 cites
    In re Baker, 744 F.2d at 1442 ; Hollis v. United States, 744 F.2d at 1432 ; In re Russell, 746 F.2d at 1420; Sterling Energy, Ltd. v. Friendly Nat'l Bank, 744 F.2d 1433, 1437 (10th Cir.1984). 8 Were this a direct appeal from the dismissal…
  • Burger King Corp. v. Wilkinson (In re Wilkinson), 89 B.R. 885 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1988).published
    In contemporaneous cases we concluded that dismissal was too severe a sanction for attorney error, see Hollis v. United States, 744 F.2d 1430, 1433 (10th Cir.1984), or remanded for the trial court’s statement as to why the particular circu…
  • Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc., 834 F.2d 869 (10th Cir. 1987).published 2 cites
    (remanding for explanation of dismissal where fault was attorney's alone)
  • M.E.N. Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc., 834 F.2d 869 (10th Cir. 1987).published 2 cites
    (remanding for explanation of dismissal where fault was attorney’s alone)
  • Connelly v. Roach, 74 B.R. 36 (W.D.N.Y. 1987).published
    (notwithstanding the attorney’s noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 808(1), 2 dismissal of the appeal by the district court was an abuse of discretion)
[T]he selection of the sanction to be imposed must take into consideration the impact of the sanction and the alternatives available to achieve assessment of the penalties in conformity with fault.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“the selection of the sanction to be imposed must take into consideration the impact of the sanction and the alternatives available to achieve assessment of the penalties in conformity with fault.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Carolyn Vaughan RUSSELL a/k/a Carolyn Russell, Debtor. Carolyn Vaughan RUSSELL and Bruce C. Bernstein, Trustee in Bankruptcy
v.
WEICKER MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., a Colorado corporation
No. 82-2233.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 25, 1984.
Published opinion
746 F.2d 1419
Barry D. Roseman, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellants., H.R. McCollister of H.R. McCollister, P.C., Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellee.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the dismissal by the trial court of appellants’ appeal to it from the Bankruptcy Court. The dismissal order states the time which elapsed since the appeal was filed — 48 days — and that no brief had been filed nor had there been a motion for an extension of time. It cites Bankruptcy Rule 808(1) which requires that a brief be filed and served within 15 days after the appeal is docketed. No other facts or circumstances are mentioned in the dismissal order.

A motion to vacate or set aside the dismissal was made and this was denied by a minute order.

[*1420] It is apparent from the brief filed with the motion to vacate that the fault for the delay was with the attorney. The dismissal of the appeal was a sanction against the litigant and the attorney. Obviously dismissal is a possible sanction, a drastic sanction, and one to be used in the proper circumstances. However, there is nothing in the record before us to indicate it was proper in this case, and nothing so appearing, we must consider the dismissal to have been an abuse of discretion.

We have recently decided several en banc cases concerning sanctions. These include, In re Jay C. Baker and Michael J. Carson, 744 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir.), and D & H Marketers v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443 (10th Cir.), and panel cases, Hollis v. United States, 744 F.2d 1430 (10th Cir.), and Sterling Energy v. Friendly National Bank, 744 F.2d 1433 (10th Cir.).

In the cited cases the pressing need for the imposition of sanctions in the proper circumstances is stressed. We also stated the need an appellate court has for the trial court’s statement or recitation as to why the particular circumstances demonstrated a need for the sanctions imposed. The “why” the particular sanction was imposed is, of course, related to the selection of the person against whom it is to be imposed and the choice of appropriate sanctions. Any choice includes monetary sanctions.

The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED.