Dubisky v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 1034 · 1988
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Federal Agents, Employees or Officers (1988), Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc. (1992)
28 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc. · Corn Belt Bank v. Armstrong · Brown v. Federation of State Medical Boards · Invst Financial Group, Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. · Elston Investment, Ltd. v. David Altman Leasing Corp.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party defending against a frivolous paper has a duty under Rule 11 to mitigate its fees and expenses by resolving frivolous issues quickly and efficiently.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party seeking Rule 11 costs and attorney's fees has a duty to mitigate those expenses, by correlating his response, in hours and funds expended, to the merit of the claims.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... must consider to what extent the defending party’s injury [i.e., the attorney’s fees incurred by Capital Factors] could have avoided or was self-inflicted. Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 879 (5th Cir.1988) (en banc). This entails an examination of the promptness and method of bringing the frivolous conduct to the attention of both the court and the opposing party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 advisory notes (“[a] party seeking sanctions should give notice to the court and the offending party promptly upon discovering a basis for doing so”). “If a baseless claim could have been readily disposed of by summary procedures, there is little justification for a claim for attorney’s fees and expenses engendered in lengthy and elaborate proceedings in opposition.” Thomas, 836 F.2d at 879 , n. 19 (quoting Schwarzer, 104 F.R.D. at 200-01).”
3 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.