In re Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The concern of Rule 9011 is not the truth or falsity of the representation in itself, but rather whether the party making the representation reasonably believed it at the time to have evidentiary support. In determining whether a party has violated Rule 9011, the court need not find that a party who makes a false representation to the court acted in bad faith.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Paige v. Lerner Master Fund, LLC · Theokary v. Abbatiello

2. “An attorney certainly “is not always foreclosed from relying on information from other persons.” Garr [v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc.], 22 F.3d [1274] at 1278 [ (3d Cir.1994) ]. In making statements to the court, lawyers constantly and appropriately rely on information provided by their clients, especially when the facts are contained in a client’s computerized records. It is difficult to imagine how attorneys might function were they required to conduct an independent investigation of every factual representation made by a client before it could be included in a court filing. While Rule 9011 “does not recognize a ‘pure heart and empty head’ defense,” In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litig., 96 F.Supp.2d 403, 405 (D.N.J.2000), a lawyer need not routinely assume the duplicity or gross incompetence of her client in order to meet the requirements of Rule 9011. It is therefore usually reasonable for a lawyer to rely on information provided by a client, especially where that information is superficially plausible and the client provides its own records which appear to confirm the information.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Coquico, Inc.

3. “(1) in the motion for relief from stay, the statements' suggesting that the Tay-lors had failed to make payments on their mortgage since the filing of their bankruptcy petition and the identification of the months in which and the amount by which they were supposedly delinquent; (2) in the motion for relief from 'stay, > the statement that the Taylors had no or inconsequential equity in the property; (3) in the response to the claim objection, the statement that the figures in the proof of claim were accurate; and, (4) ‘' at the first hearing, the attempt to have the requests for admission concerning the lack of mortgage payments deemed admitted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C.