Roth v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.3d 1179 · 2006
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. West (2011), Cadle Co. v. Pratt (2008)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1912 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Heck v. Humphrey · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there were any doubts about the legality of the ruse utilized by defendants in this case (and it appears that, even prior to Flynn , the legality of such a ruse was clear), those doubts should have ceased when we issued Flynn . Mulhern, in turn, upon receiving notice of the Flynn decision (and the record indicates he was repeatedly advised of the decision by the defendants in their respective letters to him), should have voluntarily dismissed the complaint. Stated differently, it was unreasonable, and a violation of his obligations as a licensed attorney, to continue to pursue the claims after the issuance of Flynn . In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mulhern violated the provisions of both Rule 11 and § 1927 in filing and pursuing the § 1983 claims on behalf of Roth and Gumeson.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) How Initiated. (A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To stress the seriousness of a motion for sanctions and to define precisely the conduct claimed to violate the rule, the revision provides that the “safe harbor” period begins to run only upon service Of the motion. In most cases, however, counsel should be expected to give informal notice to the other party, whether in person or by a telephone call or letter, of a potential violation before proceeding to prepare and serve a Rule 11 motion.”
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.