Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 Ariz. App. 110 - Leahy v. Ryan

20 Ariz. App. 110 - Leahy v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2008

12 state decisions

601973198019902000decided

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 Klapprott v. United States · Moody v. Lloyd's of London · Byrer v. AB Robbs Trust Company · 3 Ariz. App. 479 - C. Meisel Music Company v. Perl · 19 Ariz. App. 155 - Vander Wagen v. Hughes

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. “In that case [Meisel], the motion to set aside default judgment was filed nine days short of one year after judgment was rendered by default. Suit was filed against defendants Leidhaber and Perl, and Perl told his co-defendant that he [Perl] would take care of the lawsuit and that Leidhaber need not worry about it any longer. Neither party made an appearance and default judgment was entered. It was distinctly to the advantage of Perl if judgment was entered against Leidhaber as one of the parties defaulted in the action since it would put Leidhaber in the position, as a judgment debtor, of guaranteeing payment of Perl’s debt. Thus, the wrong-doer who assured his co-defendant that he would take care of the lawsuit stood to gain if the judgment was not set aside. This presented “extraordinary circumstances” for application of Rule 60(c)(6).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In our opinion plaintiff’s motion must properly be considered as a request for relief under the provisions of Rule 60(c)(1). Therefore it is barred by the applicable six months limitation. This limitation cannot be disregarded by the seemingly simple expedient of stating that relief is requested under the provisions of Rule 60(c)(6), where the only limitation is that relief must be requested within a ‘reasonable time’.... The provisions of Rule 60(c) were not intended to completely emasculate the sound principle that judgments must at some reasonable point in time achieve finality.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.