Philip Margo Mitchell Margo Jay Siegel Henry Medress Stephen King Mitchell Stein v. George David Weiss June Peretti Luigi Creatore Abilene Music Corp’s Empirical Analysis
213 F.3d 55 · 2000
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc. (2006), AEP Energy Services Gas Holding Co. v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
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. · Griffith v. Kentucky · Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation · Watts v. Indiana · Pavelic v. Marvel Entertainment Group
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [the paper] is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4)the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he standard for triggering the award of fees under Rule 11 is objective unreasonableness,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“By representing to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper— whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evi-dentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.