Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 333 Ark. 121 - Layman v. Bone

Layman v. Bone’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Nucor Corp. v. Kilman (2004), Southeast Foods, Inc. v. Keener (1998)

29 state decisions

1401998200020102020decided

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 B & F ENGINEERING, INC. v. Cotroneo · Maple Leaf Canvas, Inc. v. Rogers · Edwards v. Szabo Food Service, Inc.

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[p]resumably, any failure to file an answer on time could be referred to as a "mistake" in the sense that an error of some sort caused the failure to file on time. To hold, however, that any error whatsoever should excuse compliance with Rule 12(a) would deprive the trial courts of the discretion to which the rule refers. That is not the intent of the rule.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The reporter’s note following Rule 55(a) suggests also that, in applying that rule, we should look to the federal cases interpreting the parallel federal rule and consider factors such as lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the defendant’s preparedness to defend, and avoidance of “largely technical” default judgments. No doubt those are factors that may influence a trial court in the exercise of discretion to determine whether a mistake or inadvertence is of the sort that should not yield a default or whether a negligent act is excusable. Rule 55(a) provides that the court “may” grant a default-judgment motion in the event of failure to answer or otherwise defend. Thus, we apply an “abuse of discretion” standard in reviewing the granting of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(a), just as we do in reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a Rule 6(b)(2) motion to enlarge the time for answering. Maple Leaf Canvas, Inc. v. Rogers, 311 Ark. 171 , 842 S.W.2d 22 (1992); B&F Eng’g, Inc. v. Cotroneo, [ 309 Ark. 175 , 830 S.W.2d 835 (1992)]. Again, in this instance an abuse of discretion has not been shown.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “was not filed within twenty days, and I don't believe the failure to do so was [the] result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect or other just cause, so it will be judgment for the plaintiff.”
    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.