Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.3d 349 - Cox v. Saunders

Cox v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.3d 349 · 1998

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Anthony John Antonious Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett Dunner Llp v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies Inc Spalding Sports Worldwide (2002), Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery (2002)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

160199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Kunstler Nakell Pitts Robeson Defense Committee · Brubaker v. City of Richmond · Cabell v. Petty · Cleveland Demolition Co. v. Azcon Scrap Corp.

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose * * *. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, any appropriate sanction ‡ sjí % if 7”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An assertion of law violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2) when, applying a standard of objective reasonableness, it can be said that “a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could [not have] believe[d] his actions to be ... legally justified.” .... A legal contention is unjustified when “a reasonable attorney would recognize [it] as frivolous.” ____ Put differently, a legal position violates Rule 11 if it “has ‘absolutely no chance of success under the existing precedent.’ ””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “absolutely no chance of success under the existing precedent.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.