Constant v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
929 F.2d 654 · 1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 226 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Vincent (2007), George Michael Curley v. Rob Perry John Shanks Ron Lytle New Mexico Corrections Department United States of America (2001)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 28 U.S.C. § 1295
Relies on California v. ARC America Corp. · ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish · Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico · Hill v. Lockhart · Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[gjiven his long history of litigation and relitigation of the same issues, we can only conclude' that Constant “by this time is certainly not without some practical experience with the law.” : Even more importantly, as we have noted above, Constant has twice been explicitly warned in opinions of this court that his prior conduct was frivolous, and that “if he persists by trying to raise again the same issues that have been finally decided ... he could be sanctioned under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, Fed. R.App. P. 38, and the inherent power of the courts to sanction.” Given such clear, direct, and repeated warnings that the very arguments he here attempts to relitigate are frivolous, with citation to the specific rules under which he may be sanctioned, there is no escaping the conclusion that any reasonable person in Constant’s position, even though a non-lawyer, would understand that the filing of this appeal is improper conduct which could subject him to sanctions. , .,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Appellant’s] pro se status certainly does not prohibit us from sanctioning him for a frivolously filed appeal. Of course, we never impose sanctions lightly, and are particularly cautious in the case of a pro se litigant, “whose improper conduct may be attributed to ignorance of the law and proper procedures.” But we and our sister circuits have not hesitated to impose sanctions in cases “where even a non-lawyer should have been aware that his conduct was frivolous.” Such is unquestionably the case here. Given his long history of litigation and relitigation of the same issues, we can only conclude that [appellant] “by this time is certainly not without some practical experience with the law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Given his long history of litigation and relitigation of the same issues, we can only conclude that [pro se appellant] 'by this time is certainly not without some practical experience with the law.'”
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.