Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 F.3d 121 - Lau v. Meddaugh

Lau v. Meddaugh’s Empirical Analysis

229 F.3d 121 · 2000

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
July 2021
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2021

6 federal appellate ·

100200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Relies on Schmidt v. Lessard · Russel William Burket v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections · Ohio Hospital Association and American Hospital Association v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services · Gunn v. University Committee to End the War in Viet Nam · Martin-Trigona v. Lavien

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

  1. “[T]he district court, in determining whether or not to restrict a litigant’s future access to the courts, should consider the following factors: (1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “court's failure to comply with the specific requirements of this rule does not render the injunction void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “fairness requires that the litigants receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is”
    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.