Kosnoski v. Howley’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 376 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2014
10 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney · Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc. · McNickle v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. · Johnson v. Herbert
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]uch a court does not revisit the merits of the question [regarding entitlement vel non to prejudgment interest] and certainly does nothing that can be called “reconsidering” the matter. Instead, the court is asked to perform a completely ministerial task by plugging the time period, the interest rate and the judgment amount into a preset formula and announcing the result. The facts of this case demonstrate the ministerial nature of the court’s responsibility: both parties understood that interest had been awarded; both parties understood that West Virginia law set the rate of prejudgment interest at ten percent; and both parties understood the time frame for computation. The court’s only task was to do the calculation and make the amount official. We simply do not believe that by performing this function the court altered or amended the judgment. Rather, we are persuaded that the court, in undertaking such a task, merely supplies a figure to the judgment, the amount of which had already been fixed at the time of the entry of judgment. This omission is the type of error that is properly within the scope of [Fed.] Rule [Civ. Pro.] 60(a).[ 11 ] The task required of the court was completely ministerial, and involved the mere application of a series of facts previously determined to a set formula in order to elucidate a part of the judgment order that, while providing notice to all as to their positions, was sufficiently inexact to allow Kosnoski to attempt not to comply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This case is thus unlike Osterneck because the motion to fix interest was not an initial request for interest but rather a request that the court clarify the appropriate amount of interest previously and properly awarded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“so that there is an initial plausibility to the suggestion that Osterneck would apply. Nevertheless, such a court does not revisit the merits of the question and certainly does nothing that can be called”
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.