Peer v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.3d 1306 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Alabama Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1681N · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · State v. Simpson · Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies · Michael Byrne Debra Manov v. Camran Nezhat
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But if in the informed discretion of the court, neither the statute nor the Rules are up to the task, the court may safely rely on its inherent power”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“district courts have broad discretion to determine whether to impose sanctions and the nature or amount of those sanctions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to deter baseless filings in district court and thus streamline the administration and procedure of federal courts.” Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir.2010). For example,”
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.