Welch v. Hat Six Homes’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2023
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Charter Co. v. Certified Class in the Charter Securities Litigation · Rust v. Sullivan
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. Hat Six failed to follow the procedure requlred to bring an appropriate motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Hat Six did not file its motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 until after the case had been dismissed. Such a motion runs contrary to the letter and the spirit of Rule 11. ... Rule 11 sanctions are not.to be cavalierly threatened or imposed. We recently discussed the procedural requirements of Rule 11 in Coldwell {v. Cummings, 2001 WY 106 , 83 P.3d 1188 (Wyo. 2001)]. Caldwell presented a similar procedural background: a motion for sanctions was filed after the case was resolved. We vacated the order awarding sanctions under Rule 11 because the strict procedural requirements of Rule 11 were not followed. 2001 WY 106, ¶ 12 , 38 P.3d 1138 , [1142]. As we emphasized in Caldwell, Rule 11 contains a "safe harbor" provision-by which counsel provides a warning to opposing counsel through the service of a motion for sane-tions upon opposing counsel only. [Id.; T 10, 83 P.8d at 1141]. This motion is not to be filed with the court until at least twenty-one days after its service, in order to give opposing counsel an opportunity to correct or withdraw any allegedly sanction-able paper, Obviously, opposing counsel has no opportunity to correct or withdraw the allegedly offending paper if a motion for sanctions is served after the case is ended. Here, the motion for Rule 11 sane-tions was filed directly with the district court after the case was settled. Such a motion should not be e”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“However, in Welch , we also specifically recognized the narrow exception to the foregoing rule that applies when it is objectively clear from the court's order that it only applies to the attorney and not the client. We stated that designation of such an order provides sufficient evidence, by implication, of the attorney's intention to take an appeal from the order of sanctions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]f an attorney wishes to appeal the award of sanctions against him, the attorney must file a notice of appeal in his own name.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.