Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 828 F.2d 616 - Lemos v. Fencl

Lemos v. Fencl’s Empirical Analysis

828 F.2d 616 · 1987

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
August 2001
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Woodrum v. Woodward County (1989), Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc. (1987)

17 federal appellate · 1 district ·

180198719902000decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1447

Relies on Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles · Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp. · American Car Foundry Company v. Agnes Kettelhake · Southern Pac. Co. v. Haight

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

  1. “warrants that the motion is well-grounded in fact, that it is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not filed for an improper purpose.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law cannot violate Rule 11 even if it is filed for an improper purpose.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Whether specific conduct violated Rule 11 is a legal question which we review de novo. We review factual determinations concerning the conduct for clear error and the amount or nature of the sanctions for an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision 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.