In Re Russell, 746 F.2d 1419 (10th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Russell, 746 F.2d 1419 (10th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1990 · …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. ⚠ not in text
32 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons) (ca9, 1990-12-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons) (3×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
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.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) 24 Collier bankr.cas.2d 562, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,741 in Re Edward R. Fitzsimmons, Debtor. Edward R. Fitzsimmons v. M. Nolden, Trustee of the Chapter 7 Estate of Edward R. Fitzsimmons Chemgold, Inc., a California Corporation Trabefin, A.G., a Swiss Corporation, Trabefin, A.G., a Swiss Corporation v. M. Nolden, Trustee of the Chapter 7 Estate of Edward R. Fitzsimmons Edward R. Fitzsimmons Chemgold, Inc., a California Corporation (3×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
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.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eastern Colorado v. Agrigenetics
10th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co., 769 F.2d 644, 645 (10th Cir. 1985); In re Russell, 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Assoc.
10th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co., 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Starlight International, Inc. v. Herlihy
D. Kan. · 1999 · confidence medium
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, 1420 (10th Cir.1984) (per curium).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 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
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
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).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Company, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
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 of the action, plaintiffs might have a stronger position from which to argue that dismissal was too harsh a sanction under the circumstances.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co.
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
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).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burger King Corp. v. Wilkinson (In re Wilkinson)
Bankr. D. Kan. · 1988 · confidence medium
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 circumstances demonstrated a need for the sanction imposed, see In re Russell, 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.E.N. Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Shelter Products Co., 769 F.2d at 645 (remanding for explanation by trial court of why court granted summary judgment when fault was attorneys’ alone); In re Russell, 746 F.2d at 1420 (remanding for explanation of dismissal where fault was attorney’s alone).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
10th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Shelter Products Co., 769 F.2d at 645 (remanding for explanation by trial court of why court granted summary judgment when fault was attorneys' alone); In re Russell, 746 F.2d at 1420 (remanding for explanation of dismissal where fault was attorney's alone). 23 In fairness to the trial judge, most of our decisions suggesting that the district court should place sanctions on the attorneys if that is where the fault lies were decided after the court's decision in this case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Connelly v. Roach
W.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
In re Russell, 746 F.2d 1419, 1420 (10th Cir.1984) (notwithstanding the attorney’s noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 808(1), 2 dismissal of the appeal by the district court was an abuse of discretion).
cited Cited "see" Bunn v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. (In Re Frontier Airlines, Inc.)
D. Colo. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russell v. Weicker Moving & Storage Co. (In re Russell), 746 F.2d 1419 (10th Cir.1984) (dismissal for failure to timely file a brief a “drastic sanction” to be used in limited circumstances). 4 .
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
82-2233.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 25, 1984.
746 F.2d 1419
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #36,515 of 633,719
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)

746 F.2d 1419

In re Carolyn Vaughan RUSSELL a/k/a Carolyn Russell, Debtor.
Carolyn Vaughan RUSSELL and Bruce C. Bernstein, Trustee in
Bankruptcy, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WEICKER MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82-2233.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 1984.

Barry D. Roseman, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellants.

H.R. McCollister of H.R. McCollister, P.C., Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellee.

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and SETH and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

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.

2

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

3

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.

4

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.).

5

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.

6

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.