Assmann v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
159 F.2d 332 · 1947
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc. (1999), Hoffman v. Celebrezze (1969)
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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
Relies on Kincade v. Mikles · Jackson County, S. D. v. Dufty
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Courts under proper circumstances have the power to open, correct, modify or vacate their own judgments, especially during the term at which they were entered. * * * “The action of a trial court in either granting or refusing an application to- vacate a judgment is generally speaking within the judicial discretion of the court. The discretion is not an arbitrary one to- be capriciously exercised, but a sound legal discretion guided by accepted legal principles.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a parly or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adversé parly; ... The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reason!] ...' (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court ... to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; 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; * * * (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.””
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.