Freid v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.2d 350 · 1942
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 6 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently December 1995 · most notably Southern Pac. Co. v. Guthrie (1951), Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp. (1952)
74 federal appellate · 6 district · 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hormel v. Helvering · Mattox v. United States · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Phillips v. Negley
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the new trial is granted upon motion of a party, the grounds appear in the motion, as the reasons assigned by the movant in compliance with requirements of Rule 59(a). When the judge acts of his own initiative he must set out the grounds in his order. Otherwise, the purpose of the rule will not be accomplished: the record will not reveal the basis upon which the order is made or permit intelligent review by an appellate court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(d) On Initiative of Court. Not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court of its own initiative may order a new trial for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on motion of a party, and in the order shall specify the grounds therefor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is no logical or legal difficulty in granting for one reason a motion made for another reason. Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 557 , 61 S.Ct. 719 , 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941). The rule (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 7b, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c) that a motion shall state the ‘grounds therefor’ does not require the court to deny a motion merely because the court is not impressed by the particular grounds which the motion states. -x- * * And seems to me a contradiction in terms to say, when a judge grants a party’s motion, that he nevertheless acts upon his own motion; or, what comes to the same thing, that he acts of his own initiative. If he grants the party’s motion he does not act of his own initiative; and vice versa. Rule 59 (d) clearly expresses this dichotomy: ‘the court of its own initiative may order a new trial for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on motion of a party ■sf # # ^ “Since the judge acted on appellee’s motion, his action was timely.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.