Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. La Republica Argentina’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 1396 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2006), National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc. (2001)
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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. § 1605 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Bell v. Hood · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Nevada 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the underlying policy of res judicata is not restricted to a valid judgment that deals solely with the merits'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [t]he signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the pest of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law ... and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of the litigation_ If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ujnder a system such as that established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits liberal amendment to pleadings, it does not make sense to allow a plaintiff to begin the same suit over and over again in the same court, each time alleging additional facts that the plaintiff was aware of....”
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.