Cunningham v. Hamilton County
United States Supreme Court
527 U.S. 198, 119 S.Ct. 1915, 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999)
- Written by Joseph Bowman, JD
Facts
Starcher sued Hamilton County (defendant) for negligence. Starcher’s attorney (the Attorney) failed to properly respond to Hamilton County’s discovery requests. The magistrate judge ordered the Attorney to comply with the requests. The Attorney did not comply, and the magistrate judge imposed sanctions, which were affirmed by the district court. The Attorney was later disqualified. While the case was still ongoing, the Attorney appealed the order imposing sanctions. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.