Legal Opinion
Bredehoft v. Alexander
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 23, 1996No. 95-CV-1492PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KING, Associate Judge:
In this case we are asked to decide whether an attorney’s prefiling inquiry, made before a civil complaint was filed, was sufficient to preclude the imposition of sanctions under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11; whether a trial court could impose a sanction under the former Rule 11 against an attorney who conducted the prefiling investigation but did not sign the complaint, and, if not, whether the court could otherwise sanction the nonsigning attorney without a finding of bad faith. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the prefiling inquiry here was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Jemison v. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Goldschmidt v. Paley Rothman Goldstein Rosenberg & Cooper, CharteredDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Peddlers Square, Inc. v. ScheuermannDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Breezevale Ltd. v. DickinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In re M.L.P.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.