Hall v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2015
9 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 United States v. Throckmorton · Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip · Mississippi v. Turner · Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co. · Radack v. Norwegian America Line Agency, 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Fraud on the court’ has been defined as ‘fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.’ 7 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.33 (2nd ed.1990). Such fraud must be ‘extrinsic,’ that is, perpetrated to obtain the judgment, rather than ‘intrinsic.’ Br own v. Kingsberry Mortgage Co., 349 So.2d 564 (Ala.1977). In discussing ‘fraud on the court,’ the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated: “ ‘Perjury is an intrinsic fraud which will not support relief from judgment through an independent action. See United States v. Throckmorton, 8 Otto 61 , 98 U.S. 61 , 25 L.Ed. 93 (1878); see also Great Coastal Express [v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America ], 675 F.2d [1349] at 1358 (4th Cir.1982); Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797 (9th Cir.1981). Under the Throckmorton doctrine, for fraud to lay a foundation for an independent action, it must be such that it was not in issue in the former action nor could it have been put in issue by the reasonable diligence of the opposing party. See Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U.S. 399, 425, 43 . S.Ct. 458, 465, 67 L.Ed. 719 (1923). Perjury by a party does not meet this standard because the opposing party is not prevented from fully presenting his ease and raising the issue of perjury in the original action. “ ‘ “Perjury and fabricated evidence are evil”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.... The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than four (4) months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.... This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action within a reasonable time and not to exceed three (3)years after the entry of the judgment (or such additional time as is given by § 6-2-3 and § 6-2-8, Code of Alabama 1975) to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGee v. Bevill“after the entry of the judgment. Although Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy and should be used only under extraordinary circumstances to prevent extreme *Page 446 hardship and injustice, it provides a”
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.