Avirgan v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 245 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Cox v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie (1994), Farrow v. West (2003)
17 federal appellate · 2 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 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 245 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] nonmoving party, opposing a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits cannot meet the burden of coming forth with relevant competent evidence by simply relying on legal conclusions or evidence which would be inadmissible at trial.”). 18 . As this Court explains infra, the plain language of the relevant termination provision does not require that any breach be material. Nevertheless, in abundance of caution, this Court addresses the Defendants’ materiality arguments. 19 . In an email to Lew Dickey, Hale explains:”
3 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.