Legal Opinion
Cunningham v. Hamilton County
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 14, 1999No. 98-727PublishedCited by 406 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
Federal courts of appeals ordinarily have jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U. S. C. § 1291. This case presents the question whether an order imposing sanctions on an attorney pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) is a final decision. We hold that it is not, even where, as here, the attorney no longer represents a party in the case.
I
Petitioner, an attorney, represented Darwin Lee Starcher in a federal civil rights suit filed against respondent and other defendants. Starcher brought the suit after his son, Casey, committed suicide while…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by406 opinions
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Lisa Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident InsurCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Chantal Attias v. CareFirst, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- Marlyn Sali v. Corona Regional Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
401 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.