Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 50 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 Tylicki v. Ryan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tylicki v. Ryan Anchor | green | “the demand that plaintiffs provide contact information is no esoteric rule of civil procedure, but rather the obvious minimal requirement for pursuing a lawsuit.” | 12 |
| 2 | Rudolph Lucien v. Clyde Breweur, Albert Esquivel, and Howard A. Peters III | green | “the criteria for sanctions under rules 16(f), 37(b), and 41(b) are the same.” | 10 |
| 3 | Linda James v. McDonald Corporation, Simon Marketing, Incorporated, and Ante Enterprises Llc, Doing Business as McDonald Restaurant | green | “an inherent power, governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” | 8 |
| 4 | Stacy Alexander v. Casino Queen Incorporated | green | “district courts have the power to control their dockets, and there comes a point when disregard of court rules and orders becomes so serious that sanctions, including dismissing a case sua sponte, are in order.” | 8 |
| 5 | Forrest G. English and Robert M. Owens v. William J. Cowell, Donald Siddens, Charles J. Connor | green | “district courts have the power to control their dockets, and there comes a point when disregard of court rules and orders becomes so serious that sanctions, including dismissing a case sua sponte, are in order.” | 7 |
| 6 | Rudolph Lucien v. Clyde Breweur, Albert Esquivel, and Howard A. Peters III | green | “a determination that by disobeying an order to appear at a hearing the plaintiff failed to prosecute his suit and that the suit should be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for that failure is equivalent to a determination that the disobedience of such an order should be vis…” | 5 |
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.