Collard v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.3d 718 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2018
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Houston v. Lack · Catlin v. United States · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the district court] may not extend the time for taking any action under Rule ... 59 ... (e).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A trial court may not extend, sua sponte or otherwise, the time for a party to file a Rule 59(e) motion when it enters an amended judgment solely to award costs. Rule 6(b) expressly prohibits a trial court from extending the time to file such a motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a request for costs raises issues wholly collateral to the judgment in the main cause of action, issues to which Rule 59(e) was not intended to apply.”
1 later decision 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.