Legal Opinion
Barnard v. Sutliff
Utah Supreme Court
Decided December 18, 1992No. 900241PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
Brian M. Barnard appeals from a district court order and judgment finding that he violated rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and imposing a sanction of $4,381. The Third District Court found that Barnard had failed to research its jurisdiction properly before filing a suit seeking to enjoin a bar disciplinary proceeding against him. Barnard contends that he did not violate rule 11 because he made a reasonable inquiry into the status of the law and his research revealed that Utah law is unclear on the jurisdictional question. Because we find that the district…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Patricia Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Susan Mary Kamen v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Patricia McDonald and Carol BuckhamCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- World Peace Movement of America v. Newspaper Agency Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1994
- Butler, Crockett & Walsh Development Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1996
- In Re the Discipline of SonnenreichUtah Supreme Court · 2004
- Kaiserman Associates, Inc. v. Francis TownUtah Supreme Court · 1998
- Griffith v. GriffithUtah Supreme Court · 1999
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.