Dotson v. Bravo’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.3d 663 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Zocaras v. Castro (2006), Montaño v. City of Chicago (2008)
14 federal appellate · 9 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 Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · State v. Simpson · Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United · Roland v. Salem Contract Carriers, Inc.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Filing a case under a false name deliberately, and without sufficient justification, certainly qualifies as flagrant contempt for the judicial process and amounts to behavior that transcends the interests of the parties in the underlying action.... The instant case represents precisely the situation where one party’s conduct so violates the judicial process that imposition of a harsh penalty is appropriate not only to reprimand the offender, but also to deter future parties from trampling upon the integrity of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only when there is a record of delay [or] contumacious conduct.... In deciding what measure of sanctions to impose, the district court should consider `the egregiousness of the conduct in question in relation to all aspects of the judicial process.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he appropriateness of lesser sanctions need not be explored if the circumstances justify imposition of the ultimate penalty-dismissal with prejudice.”
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.