Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 F.2d 626 - Cruz v. Savage

Cruz v. Savage’s Empirical Analysis

896 F.2d 626 · 1990

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 57 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably McCarthy v. Azure (1994), Blue v. United States Department of the Army (1990)

48 federal appellate · 57 district · 1 state decisions

6101990200020102020decided

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. § 1927

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · Davis v. Passman · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas

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

  1. “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.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.