Hill v. Hawes’s Empirical Analysis
132 F.2d 569 · 1942
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1964
10 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central Railway Co. · Mussina v. Cavazos · Jehiel Brooks v. Samuel Norris · Polleys v. Black River Improvement Co. · Scarborough v. Pargoud
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is appellants' contention that the motion to reconsider was in effect a motion for a new trial which extended their time for appeal under Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. We disagree. Even assuming that a motion for a new trial may be filed prior to the entry of judgment nevertheless under the facts of this case the motion to reconsider was nothing more than an argument on the law applicable to the case and every request made therein was in effect denied by the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment entered after the motion to reconsider was filed. The denial of a motion need not be express but may be implied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““No . . . judgment ... of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, or of any justice thereof, shall be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, unless the appeal shall be taken within 20 days after the . . . judgment . . . complained of shall have been made or pronounced. ...” 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Hawes““So far as 60(b) is concerned, there was no motion before the trial court to relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Beck
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.