IN RE DISBARMENT OF HEFNER

Citator

Cited By

• Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
  …pose on the opposing party and on the court an even greater burden in dealing with a frivolous appeal and entirely defeat the purpose of Rule 38.” Toepfer v. Department of Transp., FAA, 792 F. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fed.Cir.1986) (citing Hyde v. Van Wormer, 474 U.S. 992, 106 S.Ct. 403, 88 L.Ed.2d 355 (1985), in which the Supreme Court awards damages under its rule 49.2 without a hearing). Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 38, we award to appellee Hughes double its costs. CONCLUSION The judgment of the district court is a…
• Romala Corp. v. The United States, 927 F.2d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
  …pose on the opposing party and on the court an even greater burden in dealing with a frivolous appeal and entirely defeat the purpose of Rule 38.” Toepfer v. Department of Transp., FAA, 792 F. 2d 1102, 1103 (Fed.Cir.1986) (citing Hyde v. Van Wormer, 474 U.S. 992, 106 S.Ct. 403, 88 L.Ed.2d 355 (1985), in which the Supreme Court awards sanctions under its rule 49.2 without a hearing). Nor does due process require any specific notice or opportunity for additional briefing or a hearing prior to imposition of R…
• In re AMENDMENT TO RULE 39, 500 U.S. 13 (U.S. 1991)
  …the ability to exercise control over the paid docket under Rule 42.2, which provides for award of “just damages and single or double costs” in the case of a frivolous filing. See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 474 U. S. 1048 (1986); Hyde v. Van Wormer, 474 U. S. 992 (1985). These controls are not effective with reference to proceedings in forma pauperis. It is vital that the right to file in forma pauperis not be encumbered by those who would abuse the integrity of our process by frivolous filings, particularl…