Burke v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.3d 1260 · 2001
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A. (2009), in Re: Optical Technologies, Inc. v. Larson Pharmacy Inc. (2005)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Hanna v. Plumer · Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. · Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nless a conflict of interest exists between the representative and minor, a district court need not even consider the question whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed.”); Gonzalez-Gonzalez-Jimenez de Ruiz v. United States, 231 F.Supp.2d 1187 , 1196 (M.D.Fla.2002) af f'd sub nom. Gonzalez-Jiminez De Ruiz v. United States, 378 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir.2004) (noting that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The circuit court also stated: Therefore, we hold that Alabama law requiring a fairness hearing in order to bind a minor to a settlement agreement is a matter of state substantive law and was correctly applied in deciding the Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding that the judgment of dismissal was void under Rule 60(b)(4) due to the court’s failure to conduct a hearing in the underlying action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike motions pursuant to other subsections of Rule 60(b), Rule 60(b)(4) motions leave no margin for consideration of the district court's discretion as the judgments themselves are by definition either legal nullities or not. Therefore, [w]e review de novo . . . a district court's ruling upon a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void, because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one.”
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.