Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 P.3d 262 - Cook v. Rowland

Cook v. Rowland’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2023

8 state decisions

40200220102020decided

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 Channel Flying, Inc. v. Bernhardt · McCracken v. State · Calhoun v. Greening · Pope v. State · Hertz v. Berzanske

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

  1. “It is not necessary that the defendant show that, if [the default is set aside], the ultimate outcome [of the litigation] will be different[. But] the defendant must demonstrate that the outcome might be different if a trial were held. Showing a meritorious defense demands more than a perfunctory statement that a meritorious defense exists. The defaulting party may be required to show that there is a factual or legal basis for the tendered defense. [The appellant in this case] contends that this requirement only means that a defendant must say more than the conclusory statement "I have a defense." But the exact standard is not so easily defined, because the amount of proof required will change based on the persuasiveness of the other equitable factors considered under [Civil] Rule 55(e)'s requirement of good cause. [On the other hand, we reject the appel-lee's argument] that a meritorious defense [always] requires both a claim of defense and a factual representation supporting that claim.... [In several ... cases we have not required evidencel[,] but have found a meritorious defense when facts supporting a claim of defense are merely alleged. Again, the existence and quality of evidence establishing a meritorious defense is a factor to be weighed in determining whether good cause exists to set aside the default judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “: It is not necessary that the defendant show that, if [the default is set aside], the ultimate outcome [of the litigation] will be different[. But] the defendant must demonstrate that the outcome might be different if a trial were held. Showing a meritorious defense demands more than a perfunctory statement that a meritorious defense exists. The defaulting party may be required to show that there is a factual or legal basis for the tendered defense. [The appellant in this case] contends that this requirement only means that a defendant must say more than the conclusory statement”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In addition to the specific showing of excusable neglect, ... the rules governing setting aside a default judgment generally require that the movant have a meritorious defense.”
    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.