Ordower v. Feldman’s Empirical Analysis
826 F.2d 1569 · 1987
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably McGuckin v. Smith (1992), Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency (2004)
85 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 7 U.S.C. § 25
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Lawrence v. United States · Marathon Oil Co. v. United States
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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f a district court's dismissal leaves a plaintiff free to file an amended complaint, the dismissal is not considered a final appealable order”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We apply two different standards of review to a district court’s award of sanctions. We may reverse the district court’s resolution of factual issues underlying the award only if its findings are clearly erroneous. Whether the decision to award sanctions was appropriate under the factual background of the case, however, is subject to review for abuse of discretion.”
3 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.”
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.