Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 F.3d 759 - Stokors S.A. v. Morrison

Stokors S.A. v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

147 F.3d 759 · 1998

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2023

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

601998200020102020decided

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 Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · United States v. Swift & Co. · Ray Marshall v. Board Of Education, Bergenfield, New Jersey · DeWeerth v. Baldinger · Bros Inc. v. W. E. Grace Manufacturing Co.

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

  1. ““ ‘Virtually, every court order causes at least some reverberations into the future, and has, in that literal sense, some prospective effect. That a court’s action has continuing consequences, however, does not necessarily mean that it has prospective application'for the purposes of Rule 60(b)(5). The standard used in determining whether a judgment has prospective application is whether it is executory or involves the supervision of changing conduct or conditions. . . . The construction of the Rule sought by [the movant], which apparently is to the effect that a judgment has prospective effect so long as the parties are bound by it, would read the word ‘prospective’ out of the rule.’ ” 147 F.3d at 762 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] money judgment does not have prospective application” and “relief from a final money judgment is therefore not available under the equitable leg of Rule 60(b)(5),”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A district court necessarily abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an erroneous view of controlling law.”
    1 later decision 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.