Harris v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1995), Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Federal Agents, Employees or Officers (1988)
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1821 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 11 defines the term ‘improper purpose’ to include factors ‘such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.’ The factors mentioned in the rule are not exclusive. If a complaint is not filed to vindicate rights in court, its purpose must be improper. However, if a complaint is filed to vindicate rights in court, and also for some other purpose, a court should not sanction counsel for an intention that the court does not approve, so long as the added purpose is not undertaken in bad faith and is not so excessive as to eliminate a proper purpose. Thus, the purpose to vindicate rights in court must be central and sincere.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Due to the impact sanctions may have on a party or an attorney’s career and their personal well-being, sanctions should not be lightly imposed. Thus, the basic principle underlying the imposition of sanctions, ... is that the least severe sanctions adequate to serve the purpose should be utilized. Although courts always should bear in mind this basic principle, sanctions must be assessed in light of the above theories’ several related purposes. One of the goals is to impose costs on the careless, reckless, or indifferent lawyer or party. Thus, compensation is a main thrust of Rule 11. (“Counsel who puts the burden of study and illumination on the defendants or the court must expect to pay attorney's fees ... ”)____ Compensation, although an important consideration, is not the only purpose underlying the above' rule. An even more important policy is deterrence. In this sense, the rules provide for sanctions, not simply fee shifting. They aim to deter and, if necessary, punish improper conduct rather than merely to compensate the prevailing party. The key to invoking sanctions is the nature of the conduct of counsel and the parties, not the outcome____ Of course, a district court has the discretion, upon consideration of all of the above principles, to fashion a sanction for purposes of deterrence which awards part, but not all, of the opposing party’s fee request. Adequate deterrence may permissibly fall short of full compensation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“19. Rule 11 contains two independent grounds for sanctions. Each is concerned with eliminating abuses in the federal courts. The first is the “frivolousness clause.” This portion of Rule 11 is composed of two subparts: (1) whether the party or attorney made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and (2) whether the party or attorney made a reasonable inquiry into the law. A violation of either subpart constitutes a violation of Rule 11____ 21. The other prong of Rule 11, the “improper purpose” clause, prohibits the filing of any document for purposes of delay, harassment, or increasing the cost of litigation. Like the frivolousness clause, whether a party acted with an improper purpose is based on an objective standard, although subjective bad faith may be important when the suit is objectively colorable. “The rule effectively picks up the torts of abusive process (filing an objectively frivolous suit) and malicious prosecution (filing a color-able suit for purpose of imposing expense on the defendant ...).” Thus, subjective bad faith is relevant where claims maliciously are prosecuted but not in situations where a party repeatedly has pursued or prolonged implausible claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.