Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 795 F.2d 900 - Cotner v. Hopkins

Cotner v. Hopkins’s Empirical Analysis

795 F.2d 900 · 1986

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
4
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc. (1988), Turner v. Duke University (1989)

70 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions

5801986199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Bounds v. Smith · United States v. James Griggs Raines · American Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp. · Elliott v. Perez

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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “as long as they are designed to assist the district court in curbing the particular abusive behavior involved.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[u]nder the Rule, the party or attorney, in signing a pleading, affirms that, after making a reasonable inquiry, he believes in good faith that the pleading is well grounded both in fact and in law.... The district court's imposition of a sanction under Rule 11 is subject to review for abuse of discretion ...,”
    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.