Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 862 F.2d 84 - Davis v. Crush

Davis v. Crush’s Empirical Analysis

862 F.2d 84 · 1988

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
March 2024
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Keene Corporation v. Je Cass 622 (1990), United States v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency (1998)

24 federal appellate · 2 district ·

35019881990200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Pierson v. Ray · Invst Financial Group, Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. · Rathbun v. Warren City Schools · Webster v. Sowders

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

  1. “[R]elevant factors for determining whether the reasonable inquiry test has been met in a given case include: 'the time available to the signor for investigation; whether the signor had to rely on a client for information as to the facts underlying the pleading, motion, or other paper; whether the pleading, motion, or other paper was based upon a plausible view of the law; or whether the signor depended on forwarding counsel or another member of the bar.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““constitutes a certificate by the signer ... that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry [the material submitted] 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____”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules explain that “[t]he new language stresses the need for some prefiling inquiry into both the facts and the law to satisfy the affirmative duty imposed by the rule.””
    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.