Parsi v. Daioleslam’s Empirical Analysis
778 F.3d 116 · 2015
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 1961
Relies on Pierce v. Underwood · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · State v. Simpson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ourts have an inherent power at common law 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.' " Parsi v. Daioleslam , 778 F.3d 116 , 130 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted) (quoting Shepherd v. ABC , 62 F.3d 1469 , 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ). Courts may impose "issue-related”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ordinarily, a court of appeals can affirm a district court judgment on any basis supported by the record, even if different from the grounds the district court cited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such as barring admission of evidence or considering an issue established for the purpose of the action”
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.