McMahon v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
896 F.2d 17 · 1990
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (1991), Baker v. Latham Sparrowbush Associates (1991)
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Penson v. Ohio · Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although other goals for the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 may exist, for example, punishment for violation of the Rule, compensation for victim [sic] of the violation, and deterrence of others, focus should be on the drafters’ aim of discouraging dilatory and abusive litigation tactics and eliminating frivolous claims and defenses, thereby speeding up and reducing the costs of the litigation process. Sanctions are the deterrent threat [citation omitted], by which a district court judge may deal with counsel who ignore their broadened responsibility under the amended Rule to forward the effective administration of justice.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an award under § 1927 is proper when the attorney’s actions are so completely without merit as to require the conclusion that they must have been undertaken for some improper purpose such as delay.”
5 later decisions 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.