Greiner’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2016
3 district ·
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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · State v. Simpson · Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must show by clear and convincing evidence that his opponent engaged in a fraud or misrepresentation that prevented the movant from fully and fairly presenting his case. See Atkinson v. Prudential Property Co., 43 F.3d 367, 372-73 (8th Cir.1994). [...] Here, as in Atkinson , the evidence that was allegedly withheld could not have helped the movant if it had been available at the time of trial. Therefore, its absence did not deprive the movant of a fair trial. See Atkinson, 43 F.3d at 373 ; Watkins v. Schriver, 52 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.1995).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The “fraud on the court” standard [now found in Rule 60(d)(3) ] is distinct from the more general fraud standard of Rule 60(b)(3).... A finding of fraud on the court is justified only by the most egregious misconduct directed to the court itself, such as bribery of a judge or jury or fabrication of evidence by counsel.... To prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the movant must show ... that his opponent engaged in a fraud or misrepresentation that prevented the movant from fully and fairly presenting his case. 20”
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.