Silvia v. Laurie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “failure to receive notice [of the district court's judgment] can constitute a showing of excusable neglect sufficient to allow a district court to extend the time for appeal”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vianello v. Pacifico · Vianello v. Pacifico

2. “Silvia urges that he was unable to comply with the provisions of Rule 4(a) because he did not receive notice of the district court judgment until September 1978. Failure to receive notice can constitute a “showing of excusable neglect” sufficient to allow a district court to extend the time for appeal by an additional thirty days, but such an extension here could not have gone beyond August 7, 1978. Id. See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 204.13[1], at 969-71 (2d ed. 1975). This exception obviously offers no help to the plaintiff, who allegedly did not learn of the judgment until even the August 7 date had passed. While it is tempting to overlook the requirements of Rule 4 when a party— particularly one who is incarcerated— fails to receive notice of judgment, we cannot do so. That a civil appeal be filed within the time specified by the rule is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction. That is, the time limits of Rule 4 are not merely procedural requirements that can be waived at the discretion of the court, but rather are limits on this court’s power to review decisions of the district courts. E. g., Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264-65 , 98 S.Ct. 556 [560-61], 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Martinez v. Trainor, 556 F.2d 818, 819 (7th Cir. 1977); see United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 228-29 , 80 S.Ct. 282 [287-88], 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960); Spound v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., 534 F.2d 404, 410-11 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 886 , 97 S.Ct. 238 , 50 L”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Wolfson