Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 408 F.3d 1043 - Noah v. Bond Cold Storage

Noah v. Bond Cold Storage’s Empirical Analysis

408 F.3d 1043 · 2005

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
November 2021
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Gaydos v. Guidant Corp. (2007), Huggins v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. (2010)

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

180200520102020decided

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 · Sanders v. Clemco Industries · Hoffman v. Celebrezze · Ivy v. Kimbrough · Roark v. City of Hazen

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Reversal of a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is rare because Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of cases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. These include ... the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not raise the underlying judgment for our review but only the question of whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling on the Rule 60(b) motion.”
    1 later decision 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.