Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Factual Frivolity: Sanctioning Clients Under Rule 11—Business Guides, Inc. V. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, 892 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1989), Cert. Granted, 110 S. Ct. 3235 (1990), Peter Ramels
Washington Law Review
In Business Guides, Inc v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, the Ninth Circuit held that clients can be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, if they fail to make an objectively reasonable inquiry to ensure that documents submitted to a court are well grounded in fact. In this case, the Ninth Circuit rejected the subjective good faith standard adopted by the Second Circuit, which held in Calloway v. Marvel Entertainment Group, that clients can be sanctioned only if they knowingly submit claims that are not well grounded in fact. This Note approves of the Business Guides decision, but suggests that …
Crossing The Line Between Rough Remedial Justice And Prohibited Punishment: Civil Penalty Violates The Double Jeopardy Clause—United States V. Halper, 109 S. Ct. 1892 (1989), Lynn C. Hall
Washington Law Review
Historically, the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy has been triggered primarily in criminal prosecutions. It has not encompassed civil monetary penalties. In United States v. Halper, the Supreme Court expanded double jeopardy protection. The Court held that government imposition of a civil monetary penalty on a defendant who has been criminally convicted for the same offense is punishment to the extent that the penalty clearly exceeds compensation. The punitive portion of the civil penalty, according to the Court, is multiple punishment prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause. This Note examines Halper and its effect on legislatures, prosecutors, and courts. The …