Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 934 F.2d 383 - Toscano v. Chandris, S.A.

Toscano v. Chandris, S.A.’s Empirical Analysis

934 F.2d 383 · 1991

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Alternative System Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc. (2004), In re Cabletron Systems Inc (2002)

45 federal appellate · 3 district ·

290199120002010decided

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 33 U.S.C. § 905

Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Verderber v. Cantello Plumbing Corp. · Newland v. Georgia · Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. United States · Mansell v. Mansell

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

  1. “[t]he plain error standard, high in any event, is near its zenith in the Rule 51 milieu.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f courts did not demand that litigants recognize and respect jurisdictional borders, the judicial system would be adrift in a sea of competing decrees and duplicative proceedings”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]ppellate sanctions are aimed at discourag[ing] litigants from wasting time and resources of both their opponents and the judicial system with arguments that are without merit.”
    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.