28 U.S.C. § 1912
Damages and costs on affirmance
Where a judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court or a court of appeals, the court in its discretion may adjudge to the prevailing party just damages for his delay, and single or double costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 483
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: T. CO METALS, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2010).
T. CO METALS, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2010). “Co’s manifest disregard claim is frivolous for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 . On the first issue, we agree with the district court’s refusal to vacate the arbitrator’s damage award to Dempsey on the ground of manifest disregard.”
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). “See also 28 U. S. C. § 1912 (power to award just damages and costs on affirmance); Fed.”
In Re Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010). “The order directed Respondents to show cause "why it or he should not be required to reimburse the appellees for fees and expenses incurred in defending this appeal, and why it or he should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned, under Federal Rules of Appellate…”
Violet Hogan v. Jo Ellen Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872 (6th Cir. 2016). “Nonetheless, the defendants moved for sanctions on appeal, relying on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1912 and 1927. These provisions provide overlapping standards.”
Carl Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., Carl Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 861 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1988). “88 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1912 & 1927. We affirm both decisions of the district court and deny Combined’s request for appellate sanctions.”
John M. Hagerty v. Succession of Laura McCloskey Clement, 749 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1984). “38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 . The appellees also request sanctions against Hagerty’s attorney pursuant to 28 U.”
Roth v. Green, 466 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006). “38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 . In their motion, these defendants asked that the fees and costs be assessed against plaintiffs’ attorney, Mulhern.”
Moore v. Vital Prods., Inc., 641 F.3d 253 (7th Cir. 2011). “Undeterred, Vital seeks sanctions from this court under § 1927, 28 U.S.C. § 1912 , and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.”
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith, 714 F.3d 932 (6th Cir. 2013). “38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 , which we GRANT. II. Background A.”
Morton M. Hill, Jr. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987). “The appeal as a whole is not frivolous, because the complaint about the board’s failure to render a timely award has at least colorable merit.”
Transamerica Life Ins. Co v. Akop Arutyunyan, 93 F.4th 1136 (9th Cir. 2024). “In view of its frivolous nature, and the multiple misstatements made by counsel at oral argument, by separate order the panel ordered defendants and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 , 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , Fed.”
Stearman v. Comm'r, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006). “§ 7482 (c)(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1912 , and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.