Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 497 F.2d 356 - United States v. Clearfield State Bank

United States v. Clearfield State Bank’s Empirical Analysis

497 F.2d 356 · 1974

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2010
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably United States v. Torres (2002), Clough v. Rush (1992)

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

13019741980199020002010decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6332

Relies on United States v. Indrelunas · United States v. Evans

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

  1. “Rule 58 applies where it is uncertain whether a final judgment has been entered, as where a trial judge writes an opinion or memorandum providing only the basis for the entry of judgment, but containing apparently directive or dispos-itive words such as “defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.” In such a situation, a judgment must be set out on a document separate from the opinion or memorandum.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Hitherto some difficulty has arisen, chiefly where the court has written an opinion or memorandum containing some apparently directive or dispositive words, e.g., ‘the plaintiffs motion [for summary judgment] is granted.’ Clerks on occasion have viewed these opinions or mem-oranda as being in themselves a sufficient basis for entering judgment in the civil docket as provided by Rule 79(a).... The amended rule eliminates these uncertainties by requiring that there be a judgment set out on a separate document — distinct from any opinion or memorandum — which provides the basis for the entry of judgment.”
    2 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.