Hale v. Ralston Purina Co.’s Empirical Analysis
432 F.2d 156 · 1970
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Burnett v. New York Central Railroad · Freeman v. Continental Gin Co. · Balistrieri v. United States · Hoffman v. Celebrezze · Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evi dence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party . . . [and] (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
3 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.