No. 88-2249’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group Inc. (1999), Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc. (1999)
14 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Morrissey v. Brewer · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Catlin 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] sanction order against an attorney currently of record is not a final decision for purposes of ... appeal where the underlying controversy remains unresolved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any notion that an attorney risks losing the right to appeal if the parties settle or elect not to appeal from the final judgment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he sharp split between the circuit courts as to the Cohen doctrine’s applicability and the absence of any binding circuit precedent made our holding difficult, if not impossible, to foretell. Consequently, to apply our holding retroactively would be inequitable____ If we dismiss [the attorney’s] appeal for want of jurisdiction, he will be remediless for the time has passed to file a new notice of appeal from the final judgment. While the aim of our holding—to effectuate the purposes of the final judgment rule—would not be hampered by its retroactive application, the small benefit we would gain by applying our holding retroactively does not outweigh the inequity which would result from such a determination. Accordingly, we conclude that our holding should not apply retroactively____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.