562 So. 2d 174 - Pacifico v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2017
13 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · United States v. Throckmorton · 493 So. 2d 1374 - Hammond v. City of Gadsden · 486 So. 2d 408 - Hall v. Mazzone · Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color Works
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[o]ne who contends that an adverse party has obtained a verdict through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct ( Rule 60(b)(3) ) must prove by 'clear and convincing evidence (1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case. [Citation omitted.] The resolution of these two issues is within the trial court's discretion, and on review, our only inquiry is whether the trial court abused its discretion.' "”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The evidence must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““On the broader public policy issue of reviewing post-trial claims of fraud, the United States Supreme Court, in [United States v.] Throckmorton, 98 U.S. [61,] 68-69 [ (1878) ], had this to say: “ ‘[T]he mischief of retrying every case in which the decree was rendered on false testimony by perjured witnesses, or on documents whose genuineness was in issue and which are afterward ascertained to be forged or fraudulent, would be greater, by reason of the endless nature of the strife, than any compensation arising from doing justice in individual cases.’ “First National Life Ins. Co. v. Bell, 174 La. 692, 699 , 141 So. 379, 381 (1932), is of interest in this connection: “ ‘If a judgment could be annulled on the showing made by plaintiff, litigation would be endless. Another judgment in favor of [defendant] could be annulled on allegations of newly discovered evidence, and so on to the end of time. If an unsuccessful litigant were permitted to attack a judgment as fraudulent on.the ground that his opponent failed to disclose certain facts within his knowledge, which by the exercise of reasonable diligence the unsuccessful litigant could have ascertained for himself, there would be no finality to a judgment. In legal effect, it would be nothing more than an order to show cause why it should not be set aside.’ “The same principle is stated, in different language, in the case of Porcelli v. Schlitz Brewing Co., 78 F.R.D. 499, 501 (E.D.Wisc.1978), as follows: ‘[Mov-ant] must ... sati”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.