Legal Opinion
Jordaan v. Hall
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided August 7, 2003No. 3:03-cv-00706PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
FISH, Chief Judge.
On June 11, 2003, Patricia Riley Jor-daan, Esq. (“Riley”), counsel for the plaintiff Jakes Jordaan (“Jordaan”), appeared before this court to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon her for violation of Rule 11, FED. R. CIV. P. At the close of that hearing, the court held that Riley and her law firm had violated Rule 11 and sanctions were therefore imposed. The purpose of this memorandum order is to elaborate on the basis of those sanctions and to reinforce the proper boundaries of Rule 11.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 11, 1999, Jordaan and the defendant…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive EngineersSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Johnson v. De GrandySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re ParsleyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · 2008
- Abor v. RussellDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2025
- Bakios v. Michaels Stores IncDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2024
- Dingler v. BensonDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2021
- Dwight Henry Cavaness v. 160th Judicial District Court, et al.District Court, N.D. Texas · 2026
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.