In re Engle Cases’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Adv. Cmt. Note, 1983 Amend. Frivolous litigation diverts the time and attention of judges and their chambers away from meritorious lawsuits, leaving the public and other litigants to pay for misbehaving lawyers' malfeasance, mainly in the form of longer delays. And, as the familiar maxim goes,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“test, the Court can impose the entire cost of a lawsuit if the suit was a sham from the beginning. There are good reasons for tying the monetary sanction to the costs that an attorney or litigant imposes on the Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Specialized Plating, Inc. v. Federal Envtl. Serv., Inc. , 975 F.Supp. 397 , 398 (D. Mass. 1997) (basing $5,250 sanction on the waste of three hours of the court's time).”
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.