Harris’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
25 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Joseph v. Bureau of Corrections (2011), In re Najawicz (2009)
25 district · 2 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 United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Wilson v. Seiter · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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.
“(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice of the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness, (4) whether the conduct of the party of the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for those submissions that were late, id. at A-58, but Paragraph 11 established a procedure for modification of the revised deadlines. 7 Apparently the City did not follow that procedure, and no revision of the dates in the Amended Stipulation was made. 20 In return for the revised dates agreed to in the Amended Stipulation, the parties also agreed to added teeth in the procedure for imposition of penalties. If the City failed to comply with the revised dates, the daily penalties from the 1991 Consent Decree”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Newton v. A.C. & S. Inc., 918 F.2d 1121 , 1127 & n. 5 (3d Cir.1990). For an indirect contempt, such as failure to obey a court order, it is appropriate to give notice by an order to show cause and to hold a hearing. See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 653 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); see also Roe v. Operation Rescue, 920 F.2d 213, 217 (3d Cir.1990) (due process before imposing civil contempt requires an”
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.