Stutson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Youngblood v. West Virginia (2006), Lawrence Ex Rel. Lawrence v. Chater (1996)
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 11 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Teague v. Lane · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Michigan v. Long · William Marbury v. James Madison
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We believe the Pioneer interpretation of excusable neglect under the Bankruptcy Rules also applies when interpreting excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“intervening developments, or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider, reveal a reasonable probability that the decision below rests upon a premise that the lower court would reject if given the opportunity for further consideration, and where it appears that such a redetermination may determine the ultimate outcome of the litigation, ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It sometimes occurs that, after having considered the lower court decision and found error, an appellate court merely reverses or vacates and then remands— that is, it sets the judgment aside and sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings, rather than entering or directing entry of judgment for the appellant or petitioner. That is the appropriate course whenever the finding of error does not automatically entitle the appellant or petitioner to judgment, and the appellate court cannot conduct (or chooses not to conduct) the further inquiry necessary to resolve the questions remaining in the litigation. Our books are full of such cases, from Glass v. Betsey, 3 Dall. 6 , 1 L.Ed. 485 (1794), and Clarke v. Russell, 3 Dall. 415 , 1 L.Ed. 660 (1799), to Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 , 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995), and Tuggle v. Netherlands 516 U.S. 10 , 116 S.Ct. 283 , 133 L.Ed.2d 251 (1995).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.