Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantattorneyappealcivil rightsbad faithcivil procedure

attorneyappealbad faithcivil procedure

Related Cases

Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 55 USLW 2298, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 761

Facts

On August 26, 1982, Oliveri was arrested by Suffolk County police officers during a drug operation. He was charged with attempted criminal sale of heroin, despite having no drugs in his possession. After being held for six days, the charges were dismissed. Oliveri's attorney, Graseck, filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming unconstitutional arrest and excessive force, but the jury found for the defendants, leading to sanctions against Graseck for continuing to litigate what the court deemed meritless claims.

On August 26, 1982, Oliveri was arrested by Suffolk County police officers during a drug operation. He was charged with attempted criminal sale of heroin, despite having no drugs in his possession.

Issue

Whether the district court's imposition of sanctions against attorney Graseck for continuing to litigate claims that were deemed frivolous was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule

The court applied the standards for imposing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which requires a showing of bad faith, and Rule 11, which mandates that attorneys certify that their claims are well grounded in fact and law.

Analysis

The court found that the claims brought by Graseck were not frivolous and that he had a reasonable basis for pursuing them based on the information available to him at the time. The evidence presented by the defendants did not conclusively negate Oliveri's claims, and the court emphasized the importance of allowing attorneys to advocate for unpopular civil rights claims without fear of sanctions.

The court found that the claims brought by Graseck were not frivolous and that he had a reasonable basis for pursuing them based on the information available to him at the time.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's imposition of sanctions against attorney Graseck, concluding that the claims were not frivolous and that the attorney should not be penalized for pursuing them.

Who won?

Arthur V. Graseck, Jr. prevailed in the appeal as the court reversed the sanctions imposed against him.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659

Dano v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 827, 451 N.E.2d 488, 464 N.Y.S.2d 741

Wright v. Pennamped, 657 N.E.2d 1223

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1169, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,618

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 793 N.E.2d 425, 2003 -Ohio- 4048