Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 F.3d 769 - Burda v. M. Ecker Co.

Burda v. M. Ecker Co.’s Empirical Analysis

2 F.3d 769 · 1993

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably McClendon v. Indiana Sugars, Inc. (1997), Worthington v. Wilson (1993)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2201993200020102020decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 3403 · 26 U.S.C. § 3406 · 26 U.S.C. § 6041 · 26 U.S.C. § 7422 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Pelaes v. United States · Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No 735 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

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

  1. “that, after reasonable inquiry, is not well grounded in fact and is not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[p]arties and/or their attorneys ... bring legal action for any improper purpose, such as to harass or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Rule 11 requires counsel to study the law before representing its contents to a federal court.... The Rule requires counsel to read and consider before litigating. Counsel who puts the burden of study and illumination on the defendants or the court must expect to pay attorneys' fees under the Rule.... The point ... is that every lawyer must do the necessary work to find the law before filing the [complaint]. It is not acceptable to make an assertion of law and hope that it will turn out to be true.”
    1 later decision 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.