Anderson v. State Bar of California
Anderson v. State Bar of Cal., 498 U.S. 1069 (1991)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 11 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(sanctions serve many purposes — deterrence, punishment, compensation, streamlining dockets — but deterrence is the primary goal)
-
(county may be held hable for the acts of district attorney who entered into conspiracy with county sheriff, the ultimate repository of law enforcement power in the county)
-
(the other factors include (1) the reasonable of the opposing attorney's fees; (2) the minimum to deter; and (3) factors relevant to the severity of the Rule 11 violation)
-
(“A good faith belief in the merit of an argument is not sufficient; the attorney’s belief must also be in accord with what a reasonable, competent attorney would believe under the circumstances.”)
-
("Because of the unique structure of county government in Texas ... elected county officials ... hold virtually absolute sway over the particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to him by state statute and is accountable to no one other than the voters for his conduct therein.")
-
(Rule 60(b) motion subject to abuse of discretion standard)
-
(court should limit discovery sanctions to the least destructive form)
Cited by 142 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals54
- Federal District Courts65
- Bankruptcy Courts13
- Federal Specialty Courts2
- State Highest Courts5
- State Appellate Courts3
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.