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 2 cases, quoted by 9 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 ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd. Anchor | green | “a showing of objective unreasonableness on the part of the attorney or client signing the papers.” | 4 |
| 2 | Simon Debartolo Group, L.P., Gordon Altman Butowsky Weitzen Shalov & Wein v. The Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc., and New England Development, Inc. | green | “sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct.” | 3 |
| 3 | ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd. | green | “liability for rule 11 violations requires only a showing of objective unreasonableness on the part of the attorney or client signing the papers.” | 2 |
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.