Roth v. Green
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
466 F.3d 1179 (2006)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Stephen Roth and Ellen Gumeson (plaintiffs) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against multiple Colorado officials (defendants). The claim alleged that a ruse conducted by the Colorado drug taskforce was unconstitutional. The ruse involved signs on a highway indicating that a drug checkpoint was ahead for the purpose of investigating any suspicious activity taking place after the sign was in view. The officials moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted the motion. Roth and Gumeson appealed. The appeal was denied. The officials then filed motions to impose sanctions against plaintiff attorney Robert Mulhern under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 11 and to order Mulhern to pay the litigation costs incurred under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Roth and Gumeson filed a similar motion, which the district court dismissed. The district court found that the § 1983 claim violated FRCP 11, and Mulhern was ordered to pay $92,000 under § 1927. Mulhern appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. A group of the officials then filed a motion for an additional award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the appeal. The court of appeals granted the motion. On remand, the district court directed Roth and Gumeson to pay $12,000 in fees. The decision was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Briscoe, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.