Webb v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

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

1. ““First, the reason for setting aside the [judgment or order] must not be one of the reasons set forth in the five preceding clauses. * * * Second, the ‘other reason’ advanced must be one which justifies relief.” (citations omitted)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edsall v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR COUNTY OF PIMA · Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc.

2. ““After having considered memoranda of counsel and oral argument in this case, the Court concludes that the interest of justice would be served, and is justified under Rule 60(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for the judgment to be set aside in part. IT IS ORDERED that that portion of the judgment of December 17, 1981, awarding the sum of $200,000.00 to the Plaintiffs is set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the judgment providing that the Plaintiffs shall have judgment against Defendants will remain in full force and effect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amount of Plaintiffs’ compensation for the injuries received will be determined by further proceedings. The Court in its decision has been particularly influenced by defense counsel’s offer to let the finding of liability on the part of Defendants to Plaintiffs stand. Rule 60(c) provides that the Court, upon such terms as are just, may relieve a party from a final judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hawke v. Bell

3. “Mistake; inadvertence; surprise; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(d); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gorman v. City of Phoenix