Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 22 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Garza.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Garza Anchor | green | “(1) the reasons why the disclosure was not made; (2) the amount of prejudice to the opposing party; (3) the feasibility of curing such prejudice with a continuance of the trial; and (4) any other relevant circumstances.” | 12 |
| 2 | Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp. | green | “a district court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions in order to control the litigation before it.” | 5 |
| 3 | Michael K. Topalian, Roy Jacobs, Jr., Richard H. Manuel, and Bobby W. McDonald and Armando Lopez v. John N. Ehrman, Etc. | green | “wield their various sanction powers at their broad discretion.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.