Marsch Marsch v. F Marsch’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably In Re Jonathan Barnes Leavitt, Debtor. Jonathan Barnes Leavitt v. Carlos Soto (1999), Danny Padilla William Neary v. Danny Padilla (2000)
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish · Little Creek Development Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. · Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp. · Lopez v. Heckler
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is somewhat misleading. Though it suggests that the debtor's subjective intent is determinative, this is not the case. Instead, the”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must consider both frivolousness and improper purpose on a sliding scale, where the more compelling the showing as to one element, the less decisive need be the showing as to the other.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a petition, pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,— (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; ....”
4 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.