Hashemi v. Campaigner Publications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 1581 · 1986
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. Clark (1987), Smith
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 1927
Relies on Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New York · Nemeroff v. Abelson · Blair v. Shenandoah Women's Center, Inc. · 579 F. Supp. 657 - Tedeschi v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc.
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.
“(1) Plaintiffs and their counsel did not present this action for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) The claims and legal contentions presented by Plaintiffs and their counsel in this action were warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) The allegations and other factual contentions presented by Plaintiffs and their counsel had evidentiary support or were likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) Any denials of factual contentions made by Plaintiffs and their counsel were warranted on the evidence or were reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.... If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
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.