Legal Opinion
Tannahill v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided January 24, 1992No. Nos. 147-77T, 525-76TPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HORN, Judge.
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 1991, the defendant, United States, filed a motion for sanctions in the above captioned case, Case No. 147-77, against the plaintiffs counsel, under Rule 11 of the Rules of the United States Claims Court (RUSCC).3 In its motion, the defendant argues that sanctions against the plaintiffs counsel are appropriate, alleging that plaintiffs counsel signed pleadings in the Tannahill case, which he knew contained false statements, and that plaintiffs counsel filed the petition in the Tannahill case without the knowledge or consent of the named plaintiff, Mr.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. KollerSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Alfred B. Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Manufacturing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- W. T. Grant Company v. Mark S. Haines, and John A. ChristensenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,925 Dresser Industries, Inc., a Corporation, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Certain Dresser Employees v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Speck v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
- Bayside Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
- Osage Tribe of Indians v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Favell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
- City of Fresno v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.