Oliveri v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 1265 · 1986
Citation profile
188 federal appellate · 31 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 628 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc. (1988), Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. Clark (1987)
188 federal appellate · 31 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Kentucky v. Graham · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
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 628 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A pleading, motion or other paper violates Rule 11 either when it has been interposed for any improper purpose, or where, after reasonable inquiry, a competent attorney could not form a reasonable belief that the pleading 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.”
36 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n award under § 1927 is proper when the attorney's actions are so completely without merit as to require the conclusion that they must have been undertaken for some improper purpose such as delay.”
20 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.