Legal Opinion

Persyn v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided June 3, 1996No. 91-1535 LPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER OF SANCTIONS

MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Judge:

This Order of Sanctions arises out of an action brought by seventy-seven plaintiffs for an alleged taking of their properties by the United States. Pending before the court are two outstanding Orders to Show Cause, sua sponte, why plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Craig L. Austin, should not be sanctioned pursuant to RCFC 11 and the court’s inherent powers. In an Order to Show Cause filed January 19, 1995 (“First Order”), the court afforded Austin the opportunity to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for matters in plaintiffs’ response to…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
  2. Persyn v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
  3. Ravens Group, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API