Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 850 F.2d 207 - Fahrenz

Fahrenz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Kunstler Nakell Pitts Robeson Defense Committee, In Re Varona (2008)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1401980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Stevens v. Lawyers Mutual Liability Insurance · Cleveland Demolition Co. v. Azcon Scrap Corp. · Dreiling Lj v. Peugeot Motors of America Inc Sa · Basch v. Westinghouse Electric 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “does not necessarily mean actual expenses and attorney's fees.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e can only conclude that the plaintiff’s pursuit of its cause of action was objectively frivolous once the three key witnesses had been deposed and had repudiated the accusations that had formed the basis for the plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel acted unreasonably in filing a brief in opposition to summary judgment once this evidence came to light. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court’s order imposing Rule 11 sanctions ... is entitled to deference as it was not an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “pleading, motion, and other paper ... constitutes a certificate by the signer ... that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law, or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of 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 litigation.”
    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.