459 So. 2d 873 - Ex Parte Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 571 So. 2d 1162 - Ex Parte DCH Regional Medical Center (1990), 862 So. 2d 595 - Ex Parte Monsanto Co. (2003)
42 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 Hartford Insurance v. Lagano · 362 So. 2d 846 - Raine v. First Western Bank · Textron, Inc. v. Whitfield · 414 So. 2d 74 - Ex Parte Harrington Mfg. Co., Inc. · King v. Smith
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]his court is bound by the record and cannot consider a statement or evidence in brief that was not before the [court below]. Wilson v. Crosby Lumber Co. , 386 So.2d 1173 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980); King v. Smith , 288 Ala. 215 , 259 So.2d 244 (1972). On review by mandamus, we must look at only those facts before the [court below]. See Ex parte Harrington Mfg. Co. , 414 So.2d 74 (Ala. 1982)." Ex parte Baker , 459 So.2d 873 (Ala. 1984).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence 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; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than four (4) months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Without question, a movant must both allege and prove one of the grounds set forth in Rule 60 in order to be granted relief under that rule. Moreover, because Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary relief, a movant has the burden of proving extraordinary circumstances and/or extreme hardship or injustice sufficient to entitle him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). And, while the decision of whether to grant or deny the motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, that discretion is not unbridled.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.