Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 422 F.3d 540 - Johnson v. Cherry

Johnson v. Cherry’s Empirical Analysis

422 F.3d 540 · 2005

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Dal Pozzo v. Basic Machinery Co. (2006), Jolly Group, Ltd. v. Medline Industries, Inc. (2006)

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

160200520102020decided

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 Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · State v. Simpson · Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A. · Heileman Brewing Co Inc v. Joseph Oat Corporation

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

  1. “First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure II permits a court to sanction an attorney for a pleading or other document that (among other potential transgressions) is presented for an improper purpose or makes factual representations that are without reasonable evidentiary support. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1) and (3), (c). Second, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously” may be held to account for the excess fees and other costs resulting from her improper conduct. Finally, a court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions for actions taken “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 , 45-46, 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 2133, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 , 651-52 (7th Cir.1989) (en banc).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f the document is the original copy , the ink of the signature will smear”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “balancing of the respective rights of [attorney] and [client]”
    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.