Pincay v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
389 F.3d 853 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably In Re: Enron Corp, Zilog Inc v. III
18 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Estate of Hanley v. Hanley · Cosmopolitan Aviation Corp. v. New York State Department of Transportation · Bateman v. United States Postal Service · Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the danger of prejudice to the debt- or, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In this case the mistake itself, the misreading of the Rule, was egregious, and the lawyer undoubtedly should have checked the Rule itself before relying on the paralegal’s reading. Both the paralegal and the lawyer were negligent. That, however, represents the beginning of our inquiry as to whether the negligence is excusable, not the end of it. The real question is whether there was enough in the context of this case to bring a determination of excusable neglect within the district court’s discretion. We therefore turn to examining the Pioneer factors as they apply here. The parties seem to agree that three of the factors militate in favor of excusability, and they focus their arguments on the remaining factor: the reason for the delay. ... We recognize that a lawyer’s failure to read an applicable rule is one of the least compelling excuses that can be of-. fered; yet the nature of the contextual analysis and the balancing of the factors adopted in Pioneer counsel against the creation of any rigid rule. Rather, the decision whether to grant or deny an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be entrusted to the discretion of the district court because the district court is in a better position than we are to evaluate factors.... Had the district court declined to permit the filing of the notice, we would be hard pressed to find any rationale requiring us to reverse.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal [under Rule 4(a)(1)(A)] if: . . . that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.”
2 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.