Turnbull v. Wilcken’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.2d 256 · 1990
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably McEwen v. City of Norman (1991), In Re Thomas James Dyer (2003)
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2107
Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · Cherek v. United States
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A timely notice of appeal is an essential prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The award of fees and expenses for noncompliance with the rules is discretionary, and the amount and impact of a monetary sanction should depend on the seriousness of the violation and where the fault lies, i.e. with counsel or client. However, in the absence of a finding of bad faith, there must be a sufficient nexus between noncompliance with the rules and the amount of fees and expenses awarded as a sanction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“sufficient nexus between noncompliance with the rules and the amount of fees and expenses awarded as a sanction.”
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.