Lee E. Allen v. Dr. Allen L. Ault, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
564 F.2d 1198 · 1977
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1998
14 federal appellate · 1 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 Keohane v. Swarco, Inc. · Claybrook Drilling Company, a Corporation v. Divanco, Inc., and Henry D. Hughes, in the Matter of Divanco, Inc., Debtor · Betty Albers v. Bill A. Gant (Two Cases), Jerry Albers v. Bill A. Gant · Martin v. Wainwright · Sadowski v. Bombardier Ltd.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the ten-day limit of Rule 59(b) does not determine the time for filing of a motion for a new trial; ... Rule 59(b) applies to time of service and not to time of filing; ... Rule 5(d) governs time of filing.”
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.