5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 48 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from O'Neil v. The Burton Group.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | O'Neil v. The Burton Group Anchor | green | “imply because lesser sanctions were available does not mean that the court was obligated to apply them.” | 12 |
| 2 | Stanko v. Davis | green | “for at least seven months, stanko failed to follow this order. the district court ordered stanko to show cause for this failure. stanko made no effort to explain his failure regarding those seven months.” | 10 |
| 3 | Banks v. Katzenmeyer | green | “e did not (1) respond to the order to show cause or (2) notify the court of his change of address as required by the local rules, even though his past actions show he was aware of the requirement.” | 10 |
| 4 | Lee v. Max Intern., LLC | green | “the ehrenhaus factors are simply a non-exclusive list of sometimes-helpful 'criteria' or guideposts the district court may wish to 'consider' in the exercise of what must always be a discretionary function.” | 9 |
| 5 | Riviera Drilling & Exploration v. Gunnison Energy Corporation | green | “because riviera had filed for bankruptcy, a financial sanction was out of the question.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.