Legal Opinion
Norelus v. Denny's, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided December 28, 2010No. 07-14077PublishedCited by 132 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CARNES, Circuit Judge:
No one’s memory is perfect. People forget things or get confused, and anyone can make an innocent misstatement or two. Or maybe even three or four. But not 868 of them. In this case, the plaintiffs attorneys, William and Karen Am-long, filed a sixty-three page errata sheet containing 868 attempted changes to their client’s deposition testimony, which was the sole source of evidentiary support for their client’s claims. The district court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to sanction the Amlongs. This is their appeal, or more specifically their second appeal.
I
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by132 opinions
- United States v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
- Leanne Renee Kidd v. Mando American CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
- Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
- Joshua Alford vs Consolidated Gov't of Columbus, GaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
- Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
127 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.