Demeretz v. Daniels Motor Freight, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.2d 469 · 1962
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Stradley v. Cortez (1975), Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC (2010)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 1651
Relies on Phillips v. Negley · Dragna v. California · Freid v. McGrath · Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp. · Marshall's U. S. Auto Supply, Inc. v. Cashman
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have ' concluded that this case presents the extraordinary situation in which an order granting a new trial, which normally would be interlocutory, is treated as an appealable final order. The controlling precedent is Phillips v. Negley, 1886, 117 U.S. 665 , 6 S.Ct. 901 , 29 L.Ed. 1013 . There a defendant had filed a motion for a new trial after the expiration of the term at which a judgment had been recovered against him. He showed that without fault on his part he had remained unaware that the case had been calendared for trial, although notice had been mailed to his counsel of record. The court granted a new trial and an immediate appeal was taken on the ground that the court’s power to disturb its own final judgment by further proceedings in that action had expired with the term at which the judgment had been entered. When the matter was brought to the Supreme Court on writ of error, the Court ruled that an order granting a new trial is itself reviewable as a final judgment when the challenge goes to the judicial power of the court to take that action. Apparently the Supreme Court viewed the immediate appeal as appropriate because the inquiry was in essence whether the original judgment remained in legal contemplation an effective and enforceable final order. But however doubtful the rationale of Phillips v. Negley may be, courts of appeals have repeatedly recognized its authority and applied its holding in reviewing new trial orders challenged as beyond the trial cour”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stradley v. Cortez
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.