Hackney v. Hackney’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2007
9 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 Stathatos v. Arnold Bernstein S. S. Corp. · United States v. Agne · Davidson v. Richmond · Commonwealth ex rel. Reeves v. Unknown Heirs of Brown · Hardin v. Waddell
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the text authorities on the Federal Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., and under decisions of the Federal Courts, it is held that an order or judgment in a proceeding under Rule 60(b), setting aside a judgment and directing further proceedings in the case, is not appealable, because it does not finally determine any claim. Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, Vol. 7, par. 60.30(3), p. 342; Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Rules Edition, Vol. 3, sec. 1332, p. 434; Stathatos v. Arnold Bernstein S.S. Corp., 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 525 ; United States v. Agne, 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 331 . Hackney v. Hackney, 327 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Ky.1959).”
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.