Benitez-Garcia v. Gonzalez-Vega’s Empirical Analysis
468 F.3d 1 · 2006
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2009), Ruiz-Rosa v. Rullán (2007)
17 federal appellate · 17 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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Ruiz v. Alegria · Damiani v. Rhode Island Hospital
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the severity of the violation, the legitimacy of the party's excuse, repetition of violations, the deliberateness vel non of the misconduct, mitigating excuses, prejudice to the other side and to the operation of the court, and the adequacy of lesser sanctions,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dismissal with prejudice for violation of [discovery] orders is well within the arsenal of the trial judge. See Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43 , 46 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that disobedience of a court order can constitute extreme misconduct warranting dismissal); Robson v. Hallenbeck, 81 F.3d 1 , 4 (1st Cir. 1996) (explaining that successive violations of court scheduling orders can justify dismissal with prejudice [...] ) ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Repeated disobedience of a scheduling order is inherently prejudicial, because disruption of the court's schedule and the preparation of other parties nearly always results.”
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.