Lapin v. Shulton, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

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

1. “[C]onsiderations of comity and orderly administration of justice demand that the nonrendering court should decline jurisdiction of [independent actions under Rule 60(b) ] and remand the parties for their relief to the rendering court, so long as it is apparent that a remedy is available there.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Radiant Color Company, Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Switzer Brothers, Inc., Robert C. Switzer and Joseph L. Switzer, Counter-Defendants-Appellees. Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Radiant Color Company v. Switzer Brothers, Inc. · Eliopulos v. Idaho State Bank

2. “[S]ound judicial discretion may call for the modification of the terms of an injunctive decree if the circumstances, whether of law or fact, obtaining at the time of its issuance, have changed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City · 387 F. Supp. 3d 1219 - Padilla v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

3. “On motion of a party or upon its own initiative and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discov ered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of the court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1655 , or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. The procedure for obtaining any relief f”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 316 F. Supp. 2d 1322 - Skf USA Inc. v. United States