BROWN & ROOT, INC., ET AL.

v.

THORNTON ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Jack A. Braley, D.O. v. Garland Campbell, M.D., 832 F.2d 1504 (10th Cir. 1987)
  …authority, it must sufficiently express the basis for the sanctions imposed to identify the excess costs reasonably incurred by the party to whom they will be due. See, e.g., Lewis v. Brown & Root, Inc., 722 F. 2d 209, 210 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1231, 104 S.Ct. 2690, 81 L.Ed.2d 884 (1984). If a trial court imposes sanctions, specific findings are required for several reasons. First, because there must be an express basis for imposition — “multiplicity” under § 1927, for example — the court must…
• Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128 (6th Cir. 1986)
  …bestos” is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest.” Wayne, 730 F. 2d at 404. See also Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F. 2d 946, 955-58 (4th Cir.1984); Braswell v. Flintkote Mines Ltd., 723 F. 2d 527, 531 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1231, 104 S.Ct. 2690, 81 L.Ed.2d 884 (1984). The final facet of appellant’s equal protection challenge is that the ten-year statute of repose does not rationally further 'the expressed purposes of the statute, as found in the preamble to § 29-28-103, wh…
• Jones v. The Cont'l Corp., 789 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1986)
  …asonable and vexatious multiplication” requirement of the amended statute is a different and lower standard. Lewis v. Brown & Root, Inc., 711 F. 2d 1287, 1292 (5th Cir. 1983), aff'd in part on reconsideration, 722 F. 2d 209 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1231, 104 S.Ct. 2690, 81 L.Ed.2d 884 (1984). This standard has been found to be met when an attorney, though not guilty of conscious impropriety, “intentionally ... [pursues] a claim that lacks plausible legal or factual basis.” Knorr Brake Corp. v. Ha…