Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
812 F.2d 984 · 1987
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc. (1988), Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. (1987)
26 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Oliveri v. Thompson · Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Service, Inc. · Robinson v. National Cash Register Co.
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Whether reasonable inquiry into the facts was made; (2) Whether reasonable inquiry into the law was made; (3) Whether the action was taken to harass, delay or increase unnecessarily cost of litigation; and (4) Whether an attorney has met his continuing obligation to re-evaluate his litigation position.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the attorney has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts which support the document; (2) that the attorney has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the law such that the document embodies existing legal principles or a good faith argument “for the extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law”; and (3) that the motion is not interposed for purposes of delay, harassment, or increasing costs of litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“factors as how much time for investigation was available to the signer; whether he had to rely on a client for information as to the facts underlying the pleading, motion, or other paper; whether the pleading, motion or other paper was based on a plausible view of the. law; or whether he depended on forwarding counsel or another member of the bar.”
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.