Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 F.3d 497 - In the Matter of West Texas Marketing Corporation v. Walter Kellogg--Trustee

In the Matter of West Texas Marketing Corporation v. Walter Kellogg--Trustee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
9
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc. (1998), Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc. (1996)

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions

330199020002010decided

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 Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Carver · Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Landry · Porzig v. Nolden · Wrenn v. Ohio Department of Mental Health

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

  1. “[T]he relevant test for the applicability of Rule 60(a) is whether the change affects substantive rights of the parties and is therefore beyond the scope of Rule 60(a) or is instead a clerical error, a copying or computational mistake, which is correctable under the Rule. As long as the intentions of the parties are clearly defined and all the court need do is employ the judicial eraser to obliterate a mechanical or mathematical mistake, the modification will be allowed. If, on the other hand, cerebration or research into the law or planetary excursions into facts is required, Rule 60(a) will not be available to salvage [a party’s] blunders. Let it be clearly understood that Rule 60(a) is not a perpetual right to apply different legal rules or different factual analyses to a case. It is only mindless and mechanistic mistakes, minor shifting of facts, and no new additional legal perambulations which are reachable through Rule 60(a).”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Rule 60(a) finds application where the record makes apparent that the court intended one thing but by merely clerical mistake or oversight did another. Such a mistake must not be one of judgment or even of misidentification, but merely of recitation, of the sort that a clerk or amanuensis might commit, mechanical in nature.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.”
    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.