Preveden v. Hahn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The attorney for the plaintiff, who signed the consent dismissing the action, admits in an affidavit on file that he had no express authority to do so, and this is the fact. Defendants apparently do not claim otherwise, but contend that such authority existed by implication in the attorney's retainer. In this contention the defendants are wrong. An attorney has no right to settle his client's case nor to consent to a dismissal of it upon the merits which in effect is a release of the claim, without express authority from his client. No such authority is implied in a mere retainer. White v. Joyce, 158 U.S. 128, 129 , 15 S.Ct. 788 , 39 L.Ed. 921 ; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U.S. 650 , 10 S.Ct. 638 , 33 L.Ed. 1047 ; United States v. Beebe, 180 U.S. 343 , 21 S.Ct. 371 , 45 L. Ed. 563 ; Schram v. Poole, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 725 ; Countryman v. Breen, 241 App.Div. 392 , 271 N.Y.S. 744 . The order in question was therefore not valid and the plaintiff did not learn of its entry until several months had passed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 155 W. Va. 757 - Kelly v. Belcher

2. ““ * * * An attorney has no right to settle his client’s case nor to consent tc a dismissal of it upon the merits which in effect is a release of the claim, without express authority from his client. * * * The order in question was therefore not valid. * * * It is apparent that plaintiff cannot obtain relief under this section. [Rule 60(b)], more than six months having expired between the time of the entry of the judgment and this application. But plaintiff is not denied any form of relief for Rule 60(b) does not deprive plaintiff of the remedies formerly available to him under prior practice. * * * This [the saving clause] reserves to the courts the inherent power to vacate orders or judgments improperly entered and preserves for litigants the old remedies of bill of review in equity and bill of error ‘coram vobis’ or ‘coram nobis’ at law. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McGinn v. United States

3. ““This rule does not limit the power of a court ... to entertain an action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, . . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allen v. Cole Realty, Inc.