McDowell v. Celebrezze’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 43 · 1962
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Schildhaus v. Moe (1964), Scola v. Boat Frances, R., Inc. (1980)
48 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · Kansas City Star Co. v. United States · Sleek v. J. C. Penney Co. · United Press Associations, a Corporation v. Sidney Dean Charles, Paul S. Charles and Patricia Charles and the Pioneer Printing Company, a Corporation
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Judge's Notice of Rehearing fixed for March 30, 1962, fulfilled the requirement of a written motion. `The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion.' F.R.Civ.P. 7(b) (1). The Court could initiate this on its own motion. * * * At least in nonjury case, the action is taken `within a reasonable time' if, as here, it is done before the time for appeal has expired. Sleek v. J.C. Penney Co., 3 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 256 . Professor Moore supports these views. 7 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 60.22 [3] (2nd ed. 1955). Confined as it is to the time in which appeal from the final judgment may be taken, this holding has a double virtue. First, it does not circuitously extend the time for appeal. Second, it avoids the necessity for the anomalous action suggested by Professor Moore out of an abundance of caution that a party `take an appeal within proper time and also, within appeal time move the district court for relief; and then ask the appellate court to authorize the district court to proceed and determine the motion.'"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; * * *. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) * * * not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. * * * Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(o)verburdened courts, trial and appellate, should not have to squander precious time and resources ... where the Judge on his own and in time faces up to the error and corrects it by effective action”
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.