7 Virgin Islands opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virgin Islands courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lefteri Poulis and Athena Poulis, His Wife v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Companygreen2 sentences2025Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir 1984)). 2010R] 41(b), as a sanction for a failure to prosecute, [that] the court is bound to consider one or more of the factors provided in Poulis,” and that since “[t]he record here is undisputed that Appellee did not file a Rule 41(b) motion.... the trial court was not required to engage in a weighing of the Poulis factors prior to dismissing the case sua sponte.” However, Poulis itself involved a situation in which “the district court, sua sponte, dismissed the case... for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the orders to file the pre-trial statement,” and then, after that order was vacated on appeal, | 1 | 2 |
Horner Equipment International, Inc. v. Seascape Pool Center, Inc. And Robert J. Heymgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Homer Equipment Int'l, Inc. v. Seascape Pool Center, Inc., 884 F.2d 89, 93 (3d Cir. 1989) (reversing Appellate Division for failure to apply the Poulis factors). 2013See, e.g., Homer Equipment Int'l, Inc. v. Seascape Pool Center, Inc., 884 F.2d 89, 93 (3d Cir. 1989) (reversing Appellate Division for failure to apply the Poulis factors). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Kortgreen1 sentence2012In so doing, the Court ignored both the merits of Kesten’s defenses and a lack of dilatory conduct, factors that strongly caution against dismissal.”); see also Williams, 223 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 782088green1 sentence2012See $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d at 162 (reversing the trial court because it “addressed only four of the six Poulis factors: the extent of Kesten’s responsibility, the prejudice to the government, the willfulness of Kesten’s conduct, and the effectiveness of alternative sanctions, finding that these factors weighed in favor of dismissal. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 674602green2 sentences2010Balancing the Six Poulis Factors In its analysis and application of the Poulis factors, the Third Circuit has repeatedly opined that “evidence of prejudice to an adversary would bear substantial weight in support of a dismissal for default judgment.” Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 259 (citing Adams, 29 F.3d at 873-74 (internal quotations omitted)). 2010Balancing the Six Poulis Factors In its analysis and application of the Poulis factors, the Third Circuit has repeatedly opined that “evidence of prejudice to an adversary would bear substantial weight in support of a dismissal for default judgment.” Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 259 (citing Adams, 29 F.3d at 873-74 (internal quotations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resortgreen2 sentences2010Appx. 249, 251 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Because the District Court did not weigh the Poulis factors, it abused its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.”); Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, 197 Fed. 2010Appx. 249, 251 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Because the District Court did not weigh the Poulis factors, it abused its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.”); Bjorgung v. Whitetail Resort, 197 Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Government Guarantee Fund of the Republic v. Hyatt Corp.green2 sentences2003Gov’t Guarantee Fund of Rep. of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., 38 V.I. 431 , 442 n.10, 5 F. Supp. 2d 324, 330 (D.V.I. 1998). 2003Gov’t Guarantee Fund of Rep. of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., 38 V.I. 431 , 442 n.10, 5 F. Supp. 2d 324, 330 (D.V.I. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virgin Islands. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Briscoe v. Klaus
green
2 sentences2010Balancing the Six Poulis Factors In its analysis and application of the Poulis factors, the Third Circuit has repeatedly opined that “evidence of prejudice to an adversary would bear substantial weight in support of a dismissal for default judgment.” Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 259 (citing Adams, 29 F.3d at 873-74 (internal quotations omitted)). 2010Balancing the Six Poulis Factors In its analysis and application of the Poulis factors, the Third Circuit has repeatedly opined that “evidence of prejudice to an adversary would bear substantial weight in support of a dismissal for default judgment.” Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 259 (citing Adams, 29 F.3d at 873-74 (internal quotations omitted)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Halliday v. Footlocker Specialty, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010This Court applied the Poulis factors in a very recent decision, Halliday v. Footlocker Specialty, Inc., 53 V.I. 505 (V.I. 2010), in which we directed the Superior Court to balance the Poulis factors in assessing whether an action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 2010This Court applied the Poulis factors in a very recent decision, Halliday v. Footlocker Specialty, Inc., 53 V.I. 505 (V.I. 2010), in which we directed the Superior Court to balance the Poulis factors in assessing whether an action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Andrews v. Government of the Virgin Islands
green
1 sentence2005Andrews, 25 V.I. at 294 ; Fed. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mindek v. Rigatti
green
2 sentences2003Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373 . 2003Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |