Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 556 SO2D 716 - King v. King

King v. King’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Williams v. Kilgore (1992), 587 So. 2d 898 - Bruce v. Bruce (1991)

29 state decisions

180199020002010decided

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 Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · 444 So. 2d 358 - Brown v. Credit Center, Inc. · Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. · Huff v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · 451 So. 2d 219 - Stringfellow v. Stringfellow

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

  1. “whether the defendant has good cause for default ... whether the defendant in fact has a colorable defense to the merits of the claim, and ... the nature and extent of prejudice which may be suffered by the plaintiff if the default is set aside.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Rule 60(b) is designed for the extraordinary, not the common place.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, and that neither ignorance or carelessness on the part of the attorney will provide grounds for relief.... Additionally, it has been said that a party is not entitled to relief merely because he is unhappy with the judgment, but he must make some showing that he was justified in failing to avoid mistake or inadvertence; gross negligence; ignorance of the rules; or ignorance of the law is not enough.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.