Barcia v. Sitkin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[defendants have consistently ignored their obligations under the Consent Decree, and, in so doing, have sought to nullify the Decree unilaterally. Nevertheless, although such actions justify their imposition, sanctions will not be ordered “unless defendants persist in refusing to accept and adhere to their binding obligations to implement in good faith what was agreed to.” Hurley [v. Coughlin ], 158 F.R.D. 22, 30-31 [ (S.D.N.Y.1993) ].... This opinion has clarified defendants’ obligations and indicated what actions must cease, and so good faith compliance with the Consent Decree may be forthcoming. If violations continue, however, sanctions will be imposed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 945 F. Supp. 539 - Barcia v. Sitkin

2. “[b]y necessity, the Consent Decree represented a compromise, an expression of mutual assent given the relative bargaining strengths of the two sides, and not a wish-list for all that one or .the other side would like, See [U.S. v.] Armour & Co., 402 U.S. [673] at 681, 91 S.Ct. [1752] at 1757 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971) ]. Plaintiffs negotiated for and obtained an internal monitoring system that provided for the opportunity to review up to 600 case files per year, and they have failed to persuade the court that the system in place is so deficient or that circumstances have changed such that modification of the Consent Decree is warranted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 945 F. Supp. 539 - Barcia v. Sitkin

3. “at which time the parties shall be expected to comply with the provisions of [the 1985 stipulation] and discuss whether the Period should be extended again,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barcia v. Sitkin