From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Christopher

U.S.
Oct 5, 1992
506 U.S. 820 (1992)

Summary

upholding the imposition of sanctions on a defendant who resubmitted a motion that had been previously denied

Summary of this case from Davis v. Goode

Opinion

No. 91-1881.

October 5, 1992, October TERM, 1992.


C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 950 F. 2d 1209.


Summaries of

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Christopher

U.S.
Oct 5, 1992
506 U.S. 820 (1992)

upholding the imposition of sanctions on a defendant who resubmitted a motion that had been previously denied

Summary of this case from Davis v. Goode

affirming Rule 11 sanctions even though district court erred in denying original motion to dismiss, because district court did not impose sanctions for substance of defendant's motion, but rather because making the subsequent motion at that juncture, given Local Rule 3(j) and the law of the case doctrine, was not justified by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law

Summary of this case from Wechsler v. Hunt Health Systems, Ltd.

recognizing that a claim "relates to a plan" when the very essence of the claim is premised on the existence of an employee benefit plan

Summary of this case from Humana, Inc. v. Shrader & Assocs., LLP
Case details for

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Christopher

Case Details

Full title:MOBIL OIL CORP. ET AL. v. CHRISTOPHER ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 5, 1992

Citations

506 U.S. 820 (1992)

Citing Cases

Riggs v. Clark County School Dist.

"To prevail on a defamation claim, a party must show publication of a false statement of fact, as opposed to…

37712, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control

See Village of Hoffman Est. v. Flipside, Hoffman Est., 455 U.S. 489, 494 n. 5 (1982). No essential issues of…