Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 533 F.2d 891 - Eli L. Medunic and Dolores M. Medunic v. Louis W. Lederer

Eli L. Medunic and Dolores M. Medunic v. Louis W. Lederer’s Empirical Analysis

533 F.2d 891 · 1976

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
5
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Invst Financial Group, Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. (1987), Davis v. Musler (1983)

19 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions

54019761980199020002010decided

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 Sweet v. United States · Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co. · Oliphant v. Atlantic Coast Line R. · Barber v. Turberville · Bridoux v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

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

  1. ““ . . .a standard of ‘liberality’ rather than ‘strictness’ should be applied in acting on a motion to set aside a default judgment and that ‘any doubt should be resolved in favor of the petition to set aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on their merits.’ ” Id. at 893 .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(1) Whether granting of the motion would work prejudice to the plaintiffs, and (2) whether a meritorious defense had been presented by the defendant in support of his motion to set aside the default.” Id. at 893 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “.. . whether prejudice would accrue to the plaintiff if the motion were granted, and whether a meritorious defense has been presented in support of the set aside motion.”
    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.