Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Rule 11 has not robbed the district courts of their inherent power to impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial system. In Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991), the Court was quite clear that 'the inherent power of a court can be invoked even if procedural rules exist which sanction the same conduct.' The Court stated that there was 'no basis for holding that the sanctioning scheme of the statute and the rules displaces the inherent power to impose sanction for . . . bad-faith conduct . . . .' 501 U.S. at 46. Even before Chambers courts recognized the inherent power of the district courts. See G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) (en banc). Courts have continued to make clear that there is a 'need to be cautious when resorting to inherent powers to justify an action, particularly when the matter is governed by other procedural rules . . . .' Kovilic Constr. Co. v. Missbrenner, 106 F.3d 768, 772-73 (7th Cir. 1997). 

In order to sanction a party under ...

Register or login to access full content