Schultz v. Butcher’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 626 · 1994
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Reid v. Angelone (2004), 193 W. Va. 229 - McDougal v. McCammon (1995)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 2006
Relies on Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. · United States v. Simpson · Garraghty v. Jordan · Ellis v. International Playtex, Inc. · Stridiron v. Stridiron
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the court must balance the competing policies favoring the finality of judgments and justice being done in view of all the facts, to determine within its discretion, whether relief is appropriate in each case.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Betty G. Sanders, as Committee, General Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Edward Sanders v. Cim Industrial MacHinery Inc., Formerly Known as C. Itoh Company Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited McLeod Equipment Company, Betty G. Sanders, as Committee, General Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Edward Sanders v. Cim Industrial MacHinery Inc., Formerly Known as C. Itoh Company Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited McLeod Equipment Company, Betty G. Sanders, as Committee, General Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Edward Sanders v. Cim Industrial MacHinery Inc., Formerly Known as C. Itoh Company Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited McLeod Equipment Company, Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough · Bowman v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company County“fraud ..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Betty G. Sanders, as Committee, General Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Edward Sanders v. Cim Industrial MacHinery Inc., Formerly Known as C. Itoh Company Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited McLeod Equipment Company, Betty G. Sanders, as Committee, General Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Edward Sanders v. Cim Industrial MacHinery Inc., Formerly Known as C. Itoh Company Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited McLeod Equipment Company, Betty G. Sanders, as Committee, General Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Edward Sanders v. Cim Industrial MacHinery Inc., Formerly Known as C. Itoh Company Toyo Umpanki Company, Limited McLeod Equipment Company, Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough · Bowman v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company County“Id. at 403 . Here, there is no evidence that the train which collided with Bowman's truck was travelling in excess of 60 miles per hour, the maximum speed permitted under the applicable federal regulations. Based on the preemption of state law recognized in Easterwood, NSR is entitled to summary judgment on the excessive speed claim asserted by Bowman. IV. 14 Bowman contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule provides that a court may relieve a party from final judgment on the basis of”
2 later decisions 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.