← All Authorities
United States us whitebook bridge

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.

501 U.S. 32 (1991)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Year1991
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct exists alongside Rule 11 and statutes; use with caution and procedural safeguards

Key Principle

Inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct exists alongside Rule 11 and statutes; use with caution and procedural safeguards

Area of Law

Civil Procedure — FRCP 11 sanctions

Related Cases

Willy v. Coastal Corp. 503 U.S. 131 (1992)

District court may impose Rule 11 sanctions even if it is later determined to have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction

Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc. 498 U.S. 533 (1991)

Rule 11’s reasonable-inquiry certifications apply to a represented party who signs a paper, not only to attorneys

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. 496 U.S. 384 (1990)

Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed after voluntary dismissal; abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 11 factual findings and sanction choices

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.