Legal Opinion
Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 7, 1998No. CIV. A. 93-2471PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.
Before the Court is an Order to Show Cause why counsel should not be sanctioned under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for continuing to pursue the instant lawsuit once it became clear during the course of litigation that the lawsuit was frivolous.
As Judge Schwarzer has noted: “[o]f all the duties of the judge, imposing sanctions on lawyers is perhaps the most unpleasant.” 1 Yet, none is more important. Because the willful prosecution of frivolous claims not only inflicts costs on innocent parties, but also consumes judicial resources to the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. LingleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- Murphy v. Housing Authority & Urban Redevelopment Agency of the City of Atlantic CityDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2001
- Apoian v. American Home Products, Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- Ettinger & Associates LLC v. Miller (In re Miller)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- In Re: Schaefer SaltCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.