Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Company v. International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers, District No. 8’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America (UPGWA) & its Local 537 (1995), Keebler Company v. Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Local No (1996)
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New York · Coleman v. Commissioner · Tci Limited William Needler Associates Ltd 1081800
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[mjounting federal caseloads and growing public dissatisfaction with the costs and delays of litigation have made it imperative that the federal courts impose sanctions on persons and firms that abuse their right of access to these courts. The rules, whether statutory or judge-made, designed to discourage groundless litigation are being and will continue to be enforced in this circuit to the hilt____”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Rule contains several strands. There must be “reasonable inquiry” into both fact and law; there must be good faith (that is, the paper may not be interposed “to harass”); the legal theory must be objectively “warranted by existing law or a good faith argument” for the modification of existing law; and the lawyer must believe that the complaint is “well grounded in fact.” The attorney filing the complaint or other paper must satisfy all four requirements.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is human nature to crave vindication of a passionately held position even if the position lacks an objectively reasonable basis in the law. But the amended Rule 11 makes clear that he who seeks such vindication in such circumstances and fails to get it must pay his opponent’s reasonable attorney’s fees ... [F]or such conduct the law authorizes sanctions that this court will not hesitate to impose.” Id.”
4 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.