Avirgan v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis
932 F.2d 1572 · 1991
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Farrow v. West (2003), Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc. (2005)
24 federal appellate ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 960 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · United States v. Rylander · American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago v. Haroco 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the attorney must engage in “unreasonable and vexatious” conduct. Second, that “unreasonable and vexatious” conduct must be conduct that “multiplies the proceedings.” Finally, the dollar amount of the sanction must bear a financial nexus to the excess proceedings, i.e., the sanction may not exceed the “costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the party seeking summary judgment meets the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to come forward with sufficient evidence to rebut this showing with affidavits or other relevant and admissible evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a court may assess attorney's fees against litigants, counsel, and law firms who willfully abuse judicial process by conduct tantamount to bad faith,”
2 later decisions 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.