Gajewski v. Bratcher’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably First National Bank of Crosby v. Bjorgen (1986), Gruebele v. Gruebele (1983)
37 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 Ackermann v. United States · Killian v. United States · S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson · Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Television Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcasters Inc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcasters Inc., Intervenors · State Corp. Commission v. Federal Power Commission
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; "(ii) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); "(iii) fraud (whether denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; "(iv) the judgment is void; "(v) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or "(vi) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““5. A judgment on the merits of a dispute, once rendered by this Court on appeal, after becoming final, should be set aside under Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., only in exceptional circumstances where the application of equitable principles demands that such an extraordinary remedy be used to prevent an injustice from occurring.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment or order in any action or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; * * * or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.””
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.