Steinle v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis
765 F.2d 95 · 1985
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Coleman v. Commissioner (1986), United States v. Balistrieri (1985)
15 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1912 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Universal Builders, Inc. v. Clark · Kentucky v. Hamilton · Wellman v. Faulkner
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The creditor] asserts, nevertheless, that because a statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which is waived if not raised, a plaintiff may not be penalized for knowingly filing a time-barred suit; indeed, according to [the creditor], its attorney was ethically authorized, if not bound, to pursue such a suit in light of the defensive posture of the limitations statute. Although the staleness issue has not been previously considered in relation to unfairness under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the propriety of bringing a lawsuit to which there appears to exist a complete defense, without first making a reasonable inquiry as to whether the defense is in fact not complete, has been discredited elsewhere. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demands that an attorney conduct a reasonable investigation into whether a claim is well grounded in law and fact, and not inspired by an improper purpose, before signing a pleading. Sanctions against attorney and client under the rule have been imposed where the attorney knew or should have known a claim was time-barred. Further, the fact that a defense is affirmative has not relieved counsel of their Rule 11 responsibilities in other contexts. In view of these holdings, [the creditor’s] argument that its attorney was ethically authorized to pursue the collections in case the debtors failed to raise the statute of limitations defense lacks authority.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is an officer of the court and [ ] his duty to the court is paramount, even to the interests of his client.... [C]onduct[ ] in total disregard for this duty cannot be countenanced.”
2 later decisions 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.