135 F. Supp. 2d 367 - Daniel v. Safir’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Scheuer v. Rhodes · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Haines v. Kerner
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The p]laintiff's claims against [the] defendants are plainly without merit. Nevertheless, this alone does not warrant sanctions, particularly as [the] plaintiff is proceeding pro se. "). The Court does not find that this assertion "was clearly violative of Rule 11, especially given Plaintiff's pro se status,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Benitez v. King“the court may take into account ... whether the litigant had been warned of the possible imposition of sanctions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Benitez v. King
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.