Webb v. James’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 617 · 1998
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co. (2006), Gavoni v. Dobbs House, Inc. (1999)
35 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (§ 505 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Marek v. Chesny · Herrmann v. United States · Central Intelligence Agency v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity · Johnson v. University College of Alabama · Mallory v. Eyrich
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the [defendant] for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 68 sets forth a rather finely tuned procedure; unlike a normal contract offer, an offer of judgment under the Rule imposes certain consequences that can be costly for the plaintiff who declines the offer. The Rule is thus designed to put significant pressure on the plaintiff to think hard about the likely value of its claim as compared to the defendant’s offer. In return, the plaintiff, as we understand the scheme, is guaranteed 10 days to ponder the matter (as though the plaintiff had paid for a 10-day option). If the Rule were to be read as [the defendant] urges, the pressure on the plaintiff would be greater than the Rule contemplates, because the Rule so construed would allow a defendant to engage in tactical pressuring maneuvers .... This does not mean that a defendant offeror is totally without recourse once an offer has been made. We agree with both the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Colonial Penn and the district court’s determination below that a defendant is entitled to relief if the offer is induced by actual misconduct on the part of the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); ... (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
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.