Cleveland v. Berkson’s Empirical Analysis
878 F.2d 1034 · 1989
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2019
9 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · Anton v. Lehpamer · Lund v. Shearson/Lehman/American Express, Inc.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A trial] courts’ intentional deferral of action on a motion for [Rule 11] sanctions, when it enters a judgment definitely and completely disposing of the underlying action, constitutes a determination on the part of the [trial] court that its disposition of the motion for sanctions will not impact upon its resolution of the underlying litigation. Under these circumstances, a “practical approach” to the matter of finality counsels that we not defer consideration of the merits until the [trial] court addresses the matter of sanctions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weaver v. Grafio“To avoid.any further ambiguity with respect to this issue, we now hold that the pendency of ... motions [for Rule 11 sanctions] in the district court, when the district court definitively and completely has disposed of the entire case on the merits, does not render the district court’s judgment nonfinal.”). 6 . The order enforcing the settlement in this case is distinguishable from the order we deemed non-final and non-appealable in Ul-mer, supra. There, we held that an order on a motion to enforce a settlement”
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.