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.

In requiring reasonable inquiry before the filing of any pleading in a civil case in federal district court, Rule 11 demands 'an objective determination of whether a sanctioned party's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.' Brown v. Federation of State Medical Boards, 830 F.2d 1429, 1435 (7th Cir. 1987). See also In re Ronco, Inc., 838 F.2d 212, 217 (7th Cir. 1988). In effect it imposes a negligence standard, cf. Pantry Queen Foods, Inc. v. Lifschultz Fast Freight, Inc., 809 F.2d 451, 453 (7th Cir. 1987); Classic Components Supply, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 841 F.2d 163, 165 (7th Cir. 1988); Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479, 482 (3d Cir. 1987), for negligence is a failure to use reasonable care. The equation between negligence and failure to conduct a reasonable precomplaint inquiry is transparent in Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir. 1987), where we said that 'the amount of investigation required by Rule 11 depends on both the time available to investigate and on the probability that more investigation will turn up important evidence; the Rule does not require steps that are not cost-justified.' See

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students