Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.3d 465 - Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc.

Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.3d 465 · 1998

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
1
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Smalls v. United States (2006), United States v. Torres (2004)

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

5001998200020102020decided

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 Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · United States v. Robinson · Lee v. Brown · Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “almost every appellant's lawyer . . . plead[ing] his own inability to understand the law when he fails to comply with a deadline.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Rule 6(e) does not apply to time periods that begin with the filing in court of a judgment or order. Thus, Rule 6(e) does not apply to the 10-day period that runs from entry of judgment for moving to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e).”
    3 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.