Jennings v. Rivers’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.3d 850 · 2005
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Smith v. United States (2009), MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines (2008)
18 federal appellate · 15 district · 2 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 Koon v. United States · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney · Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi · The Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does I-Xvi
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[F]ault in the delay remains a very important factor-perhaps the most important single factor-in determining whether neglect is excusable.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits' contemplated by Rule 59(e).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.