Kurkowski v. Volcker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, — (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are 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 have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery....”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. American State Bank v. Pace · Danik, Inc. v. Hartmarx Corp.

2. “The court firmly believes that it has a duty to apply the law as it understands it to clearly developed facts, and when that is done in this case, it is commanded by Rule 11 to award appropriate sanctions. The rule says ‘shall’ not ‘may’. Under these circumstances, the court believes that it has little choice but to impose appropriate sanctions upon both the plaintiff and her attorney. ‘Rule 11 was adopted to spare innocent parties and overburdened courts from the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Another purpose is to deter plaintiff’s from bringing actions that lack in factual or legal support.’ Kurkowski, supra, at 204 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Westridge v. Allstate Insurance · Duffield v. First National Bank

3. “We recognize that pro se complaints are read liberally, but they still may be frivolous if filed in the face of previous dismissals involving the exact same parties under the exact same legal theories. [R]ule 11 was adopted to spare innocent parties and overburdened courts from the filing of frivolous lawsuits.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 543 F. Supp. 2d 1038 - Ventimiglia v. AT & T YELLOW PAGES · Moeller v. United States