Legal Opinion · Dissent

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation v. John L. Molinaro, and Kurahara & Morrissey, Real Party in Interest-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 17, 1991No. 88-6216Published

1DissentO’Scannlain, Circuit Judge

Respectfully, I dissent.

I

“It is now clear that the central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in the District Court and thus, consistent with the Rule Enabling Act’s grant of authority, streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., — U.S. --, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2454 (1990); see also Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 456, 460, 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“One of the fundamental purposes of Rule 11 is to strengthen the hand of the trial judge in his [or her] efforts to…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
  4. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. MolinaroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  5. Agnew v. ParksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API