Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 F.2d 1003 - Fiske v. Wallace

Fiske v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

115 F.2d 1003 · 1940

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
November 1978
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1978

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

401940195019601970decided

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

Relies on Miller v. United States · A. J. Crowhurst & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner

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

  1. ““The plaintiff’s motion to amend the conclusions of law and the judgment in his favor having been filed after the judgment defendants had taken their appeal did not operate to retain the case in the jurisdiction of the district court or to extend the time for appeal to the judgment plaintiff. After the judgment defendants had appealed, he has the right to take a cross appeal or to file his motion (within time) in the trial court and within time limited by statute for appeal from the judgment apply to this court to remand the case for consideration of his motion to modify. Isgrig v. United States, supra [ 109 F.2d 131 (4th Cir. 1940)]. The difficulty here is that the trial court had, by the taking of the appeal, lost jurisdiction to consider and determine the motion before the motion was filed. But Mr. Wallace [the plaintiff] could not extend the time for his appeal merely by his motion filed after the defendants’ appeal had been taken.” 115 F.2d 1005 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . the mere existence of plaintiff's right to proceed under Rule 52(b) . . . did not deprive the judgment defendants of the right to take an appeal accorded them by the statute.”
    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.