Briscoe v. Klaus’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.3d 252 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman (2011), Doe v. Megless (2011)
4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · Emerson v. Thiel College · Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc. · Scarborough v. Eubanks · Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales 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 63 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 to 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 or 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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 1983 amendments, the [trial] court is specifically authorized to impose on an attorney those expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by unjustified failure to comply with discovery orders or pretrial orders____The most direct and therefore preferable sanction for the pattern of attorney delay such as that which the... court encountered in this case would be to impose the excess costs caused by such conduct directly upon the attorney, with an order that such costs are not to be passed on to the client, directly or indirectly. This would avoid compelling an innocent party to bear the brunt of its counsel’s dereliction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here a plaintiff ... is proceeding in forma pauperis, we have upheld the District Court’s conclusion that no alternative sanctions existed because monetary sanctions, including attorney's fees, 'would not be an effective alternative.' ”) (quoting Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir.2002)); Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, 664 F.3d 71 , 78 n. 2 (5th Cir.2011) (‘”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sanchez v. Rodriguez
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.