Buell v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “(1) conduct by an officer of the court (2) directed towards the judicial machinery itself that is (3) intentionally false, wilfully blind to the truth or is in reckless disregard for the truth and (4) a positive averment or concealment, when one is under a duty to disclose, and that (5) deceives the court. Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir.1993). “ ‘Fraud upon the court’ has been narrowly defined to embrace: only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases. It generally involves a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme designed to subvert the integrity of the judicial process” True v. Comm’r, 999 F.2d 540 , 1993 WL 272478 (6th Cir.1993) (unpublished) (internal citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Okros v. Angelo Iafrate Constr. Co. · 404 F. Supp. 2d 984 - Spirko v. Bradshaw

2. “in part.” 9 . We include these portions of this paragraph only to complete the story and explain Iafrate’s theory of what actually occurred. This is not to be construed as properly admitted evidence or a finding of fact by this court. 10 . A review of the entire phone record reveals that 40 of the 50 out-of-town calls on the bill were to this same number (i.e., this same attorney), beginning with the first call (September 16) and continuing to the last (October 12). Of course, no explanation has ever been sought or given as to why Okros was calling this attorney (at the suggestion of a union organizer) almost daily, beginning at least two weeks prior to his "return to work” or his termination. 11 . Pending appeal, Mr. Hardin moved this court to strike portions of Iafrate’s appellate brief on the theory that we have no jurisdiction to hear certain issues because Iafrate (allegedly) did not preserve them for appeal. For any number of reasons, Mr. Hardin’s argument is completely untenable. Consequently, this motion is denied. 12 . We have also held that "intentional, fraudulent non-disclosure during discovery can form the basis of a claim of fraud upon the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Okros v. Angelo Iafrate Constr. Co.

3. “(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. (b)(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless— (A) the applicant shows that that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfin-der would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections