Chemiakin v. Yefimov’s Empirical Analysis
932 F.2d 124 · 1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Schlaifer Nance & Company Inc v. The Estate of Andy Warhol (1999), Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue (1996)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[While] Johnson Chem. Co. ... has not received universal acceptance ... most courts have generally agreed with the Santiago reasoning regarding Rule 41(a)(l)(i) and thus would not, for instance, award attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after a case had been voluntarily dis-missed_”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although appellants attempt to engraft onto Rule 11 a requirement that an evidentiary hearing be held prior to the imposition of sanctions, there is no such requirement, absent disputed facts or issues of credibility, here as in the ordinary case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“are not perfectly analogous to cases in which the ... court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, both contexts present the question of the court's continuing power over litigants who do not, or no longer, have a justiciable case before the court.”
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.