Schildhaus v. Moe’s Empirical Analysis
335 F.2d 529 · 1964
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably International Controls Corp. v. Vesco (1977), Hoffman v. Celebrezze (1969)
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 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 United States v. Swift & Co. · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Cardillo v. United States · Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, 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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Eleven days after the entry of a defendant’s judgment in that case, [Tarkington v. United States Lines Co., 222 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1955)] correct under the law laid down by this Court, the Supreme Court rendered a decision which showed the judgment to be erroneous; the plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b) ten days thereafter, within the 30-day period allowed for appeal. Under such circumstances there is indeed good sense in permitting the trial court to correct its own error and, if it refuses, in allowing a timely appeal from the refusal; no good purpose is served by requiring the parties to appeal to a higher court, often requiring remand for further trial proceedings, when the trial court is equally able to correct its decision in the light of new authority on application made within the time permitted for appeal [citation omitted]. * * * ””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But nothing in the Rule, the cases, or the treatises suggests that a motion for relief from judicial error more than eight months after the entry of judgment is made ‘within a reasonable time’ as the Rule requires. ‘Rule 60(b) was not intended as a substitute for a direct appeal from an erroneous judgment.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rule is not to be read without emphasis on the important words ‘no longer’; assuming that the propriety of the injunction as issued has passed beyond debate, it refers to some change in conditions that makes continued enforcement inequitable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrell v. Harder
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.