Wolfsohn v. Hankin’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
166 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 269 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Houston v. Lack (1988), Bowles v. Russell (2007)
166 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Aberbathy v. Sullivan · United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission
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 269 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It appears clear to me that through Harris this Court has given trial judges the de facto power to grant extensions of time, directly contra to the definite requirements of Rule 52(b) and 59 and the command of Rule 6(b) that the court “may not extend the time for taking any action under rules * * (b), 59(b), (d) and (e) * * I therefore respectfully dissent.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““I have concluded that Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers should be confined to its peculiar facts, i. e., a finding of ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 73(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I say this, although I joined Harris, because the Court has used Harris to spawn the present hopeless confusion which I never contemplated at the time of its decision. Harris _was the authority upon which the court rested Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, despite the fact that Thompson involved Rules 52 (b) and 59(b) and (e) with their specific requirements that the motion must be made or served not later than ten days after the entry of judgment. The Court brushed aside these express and unambiguous mandates of Congress with the assertion that Thompson ‘fits squarely within the letter and spirit of Harris.’ And now comes a third case * * * which further compounds the subversion of the rules. * * * ” (Citations omitted.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The instant cause fits squarely within the letter and spirit of Harris. Here, as there, petitioner did an act which, if properly done, postponed the deadline for the filing of his appeal. Here, as there, the District Court concluded that the act had been properly done. Here, as there, the petitioner relied on the statement of the District Court and filed the appeal within the assumedly new deadline but beyond the old deadline. And here, as there, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had erred and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, in view of these “unique circumstances,” ... we grant the writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals so that petitioner’s appeal may be heard on the merits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.