Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 F.3d 430 - In Re: 1997 Grand Jury United States of America

In Re: 1997 Grand Jury United States of America’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
March 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2023

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

90200020102020decided

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 United States v. Robinson · United States v. Santoro · United States v. Gilbert · Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Meade · United States v. Garcia

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

  1. “[V]exatious means “ ‘without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.’ ” Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1298 -99 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1559 (7th ed.1999)). A frivolous action is “ ‘groundless ... with little prospect of success; often brought to embarrass or annoy the defendant.’ ” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 668 (6th Ed.1990)). And, bad faith “ ‘is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; ... it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.’ ” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 139 (6th ed.1990)).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) that the case was pending on or after November 26, 1997, the date of the enactment of the Hyde Amendment; (2) that the case was a criminal case; (3) that the Petitioner was not represented by “assigned counsel paid for by the public;” (4) that the Petitioner was the prevailing party; (5) that the prosecution was “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith;” (6) that the attorney’s fees were reasonable; and (7) that there are no special circumstances that would make such an award unjust. 1”
    2 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.