Reed v. Kroger Co.’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.2d 1268 · 1973
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1992
8 federal appellate · 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 United States v. Robinson · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. · Fallen v. United States · Berman v. United States · Files v. City of Rockford
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We strongly believe that professional standards require counsel to be familiar with, or to make at least a reasonable effort to learn, the rules of the courts in which they practice. The rules of this court are published (citations omitted) and the court has circulated copies of its rules to the clerks of all federal courts. We are unable to conclude that counsel’s failure to acquaint himself with the basic requirements for the filing of his client’s notice of appeal can properly be described as constituting “unique circumstances” or “all that could reasonably be expected”. 7”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“These Rules govern the procedure in the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals of the United States. Except as to matters specifically covered by these Rules, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure shall govern the procedure in all cases or proceedings in this court. The Rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“professional standards require counsel to be familiar with, or to make at least a reasonable effort to learn, the rules of the courts in which they practice.... unfamiliarity with local practice does not even constitute 'excusable neglect,' let alone satisfy the higher standard recognized by the Supreme Court [for 'unique circumstances'].”
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.