Pamela Martens v. Roberta O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(1) it 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 F. Supp. 2d 355 - Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C. · 216 F. Supp. 2d 139 - Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc.

2. “There are, for example, many ways in which the pérformance of a class action settlement might be called into question before the district court: (i) in a contempt proceeding (if the claim is that the district court’s orders are not being complied with); (ii) in a new action for breach of contract (if the claim is that one or more parties are not living up to their obligations under the settlement stipulation); (iii) or in a motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (if an amendment of the original judgment is being requested).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 106 F. Supp. 3d 316 - Valdin Investments Corp. v. Oxbridge Capital Management, LLC

3. “(1) the duration of the plaintiffs failures; (2) whether plaintiff had received notice that further delays would result in dismissal; (3) whether the defendant is likely to be prejudiced by further delay; (4) whether the district judge has taken care to strike the balance between alleviating court calendar congestion and protecting a party’s right to due process and a fair chance to be heard; and (5) whether the judge has adequately assessed the efficacy of lesser sanctions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 586 F. App'x 713 - Arizona Premium Finance Co., Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, of