Sink v. Easter’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
213 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Thomas M. McInnis & Associates, Inc. v. Hall (1986), Davis v. Davis (2006)
213 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 King v. Grindstaff · Wiggins v. Bunch · Cox v. Cox · American Floor MacHine Co. v. Dixon · Crosland-Cullen Company v. Crosland
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and appellate review is limited to determining whether the court abused its discretion.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The earlier cases on Rule 60(b) took the view that the district court has no power to consider a motion under the rule after notice of appeal has been filed. This always seemed anomalous since the time for making the motion continues to run while the case is pending on appeal. These cases required a party seeking relief from a judgment during the pendency of an appeal first to present his ground to the appellate court. If it thought that the motion should be heard it would remand the case to the district court for that purpose. One alternative to actual remand was for the appellate court to give permission to the district court to rule on the motion. Other cases have developed a different and more satisfactory procedure. They hold that during the pendency of an appeal the district court may consider a Rule 60(b) motion and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application can then be made to the appellate court for remand. This procedure is sound in theory and preferable in practice. The logical consequence is that the district court may deny the motion although it cannot, until there has been a remand, grant it, and this seems to be the interpretation followed by many courts. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) Notwithstanding notice of appeal a cause remains in fieri during the term in which the judgment was rendered, and (2) The trial judge, after notice and on proper showing, may adjudge the appeal has been abandoned.”
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.