Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 F.2d 340 - Browning v. Kramer

Browning v. Kramer’s Empirical Analysis

931 F.2d 340 · 1991

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
August 2024
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Case (1991), Federal Deposit Insurance v. Conner (1994)

26 federal appellate · 5 district ·

3301991200020102020decided

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 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Bauer v. Waldschmidt · Estate of Johnson v. Engle

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

  1. “associated with 'the persistent prosecution of a meritless claim.'”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “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.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Before an award is made under § 1927, the attorney to be sanctioned must be allowed to respond not only as to the finding that her [or his] actions taken on behalf of her client have become unreasonable and vexatious, but also as to the amount of her opponent’s fees and costs which are attributable to any action that multiplied the proceedings.”
    1 later decision 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.