Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Rohn
Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands
Decided August 1, 2017No. S. Ct. Civil No. 2016-0041Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCabret, Associate Justice
I agree with the majority that the Superior Court erred by relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) to sanction attorney Rohn.1 I also agree with the majority that the Superior Court has both statutory and inherent authority to impose sanctions. I write separately because, unlike the majority, I believe that this Court, by relying on the Superior Court’s statutory and inherent authority to sanction, can affirm the court’s decision without disturbing its underlying factual grounds for sanctions, namely, Rohn’s blatant noncompliance with its lawful case-management deadline.
It is well…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- Hoskins v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- In the Matter of Thomas R. Volpert, Jr., Debtor. Appeal of Bernard M. EllisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- John Pierce v. F.R. Tripler & Co. And Hartmarx Specialty Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.