Ali v. Tolbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 district ·

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Notwithstanding Noble’s conduct is not sanctionable under Rule 11, sanctions may nonetheless be warranted under the district court’s inherent authority, which “enables courts to protect their institutional integrity and to guard against abuses of the judicial process with contempt citations, fines, awards of attorneys’ fees, and such other orders and sanctions as they find necessary, including even dismissals and default judgments.” Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos., 62 F.3d 1469, 1472 (D.C.Cir. 1995); see generally Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43-46 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 (describing extent of inherent judicial authority). Accordingly, we remand for the district court to consider whether to exercise its inherent authority to sanction Noble. To support a sanction under this authority, the court must make a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Noble committed sanctionable misconduct that is tantamount to bad faith. Shepherd, 62 F.3d at 1472 (clear and convincing evidence); Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 , 100 S.Ct. 2455 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (bad faith).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Application to Unseal Dockets Related to the Indep. Counsel's 1998 Investigation of President Clinton · United States v. Honeywell International, Inc.

2. “a person ... who in the ordinary course of business does or would sell, lease (to), or transfer, either directly or indirectly, consumer goods or services, or a person who in the ordinary course of business does or would supply the goods or services which are or would be the subject matter of a trade practice”). The D.C. Circuit has, however, declined to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 768 F. Supp. 2d 121 - Chen v. Bell-Smith

3. “merchant” in effect at the time of the sale of plaintiffs’ property in December 2005. 11 . Plaintiffs have also raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, if their transaction with the Smiths was, in fact, a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 768 F. Supp. 2d 121 - Chen v. Bell-Smith