28 U.S.C. § 1927
Counsel’s liability for excessive costs
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5,525
cases (1,557 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Norelus v. Denny's, Inc.
Norelus v. Denny's, Inc. (2010)
“The district court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to sanction the Amlongs.”
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. (1991)
“11, and 28 U. S. C. § 1927 . After full briefing and a hearing, see 124 F.”
Kaass Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015)
“SMITH, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, Appellant Kaass Law challenges the district court’s' decision to grant Appellee Wells Fargo’s motion for sanctions against it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . We hold that 28 U.”
Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc. (2006)
“, appeal from a district court order imposing sanctions in excess of $400,000, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , for their conduct in representing a Title VII plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit.”
Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp. (2010)
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , the court also held AMC’s attorneys jointly and severally liable for a portion of Romag’s attor- ney’s fees, including the law firm Abelman, Frayne & Schwab (“Abelman”) and David Jaroslawicz—the sole member of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, LLC.”
In re Engle Cases (2017)
“…index="0" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=28%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%201927"> 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ...---- Part IV.A.: § 1927...---- Part IV.B: Application...---- Part IV.B.1: The 588 Actions...---- Part IV.B.2”
Gollomp v. Spitzer (2009)
“CABRANES, Circuit Judge: We consider in this opinion (1) whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity-bars suits against the Unified Court System of the State of New York, and (2) whether the imposition on plaintiffs counsel of attorneys fees as a form of sanctions pursuant to…”
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper (1980)
“And 28 U. S. C. § 1927 permits a court to tax the excess "costs" of a proceeding against a lawyer "who so multiplies the proceedings .”
In re Royal Manor Management, Inc. (2015)
“ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues in these appeals are whether the bankruptcy court erred in sanctioning Grossman $207,004 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority under 11 U.”
In Re Prudential Insurance Company America Sales Practice Litigation Agent Actions, Michael P. Malakoff, Esquire, and Ma (2002)
“In March, 1997, Malakoff filed his own motion to sanction Lead Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . Shortly thereafter, Mala-koff filed an additional motion for sanctions, this time relying upon Fed.”
Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc. (2009)
“9 (3) The law firm defendants and the individual attorneys violated 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Local Rule 83.”
Garner v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court (2009)
“§ 1988 , the CCJC asked the court to impose sanctions against the employees’ attorneys under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ohio Revised Code § 2328.”
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.