Legal Opinion
Foster v. Michelin Tire Corp.
District Court, C.D. Illinois
Decided December 12, 1985No. 85-3190PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MILLS, District Judge:
When an attorney signs a complaint, he “certifies” that he has made “reasonable inquiry” into the factual grounds for the allegation.
Rule 11 has been violated here.
No “reasonable inquiry” was made by Plaintiff’s counsel as to Firestone.
Sanctions will be imposed.
Specifically, Defendant Firestone Tire & Rubber Company (Firestone) appeals from the United States Magistrate’s order declining to find that Plaintiff violated Fed.R. Civ.P. 11. The appeal is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In accordance with Local Rule 18(b)(2), the Court has made a de novo…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- George BADILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CENTRAL STEEL & WIRE COMPANY, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Robert B. Nemeroff, D.D.S., Hale & Dorr v. Alan AbelsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Van Berkel v. Fox Farm and Road MacHineryDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1984
- Wells v. Oppenheimer & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- SFM Corp. v. Sundstrand Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Vista Manufacturing, Inc. v. Trac-4, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1990
- Wonder Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Wonder Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 1989
- Whittington v. Ohio River Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1987
- Cascade Brigade v. Economic Development BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991
- Kollander v. KollanderAlaska Supreme Court · 2017
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.