Edward Bohlin Co Inc v. Banning Co Inc C T H’s Empirical Analysis
6 F.3d 350 · 1993
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Templet v. Hydrochem Inc. (2004), Hale v. Townley (1995)
37 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 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
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. · Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi · Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, 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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That final judgments should not lightly be disturbed; (2) that the Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for appeal; (3) that the rule should be liberally construed in order to do substantial justice; (4) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; (5) whether-if the judgment was a default or a dismissal in which there was no consideration of the merits-the interest in deciding cases on the merits outweighs, in the particular case, the interest in the finality of judgment, and there is merit in the movant’s claim or defense; (6) whether there are any intervening equities that would make it inequitable to grant relief; and (7) any other factors relevant to the justice of the judgment under attack.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`inadvertent mistake'[,] ... [g]ross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law are insufficient bases for 60(b)(1) relief.... In fact, a court would abuse its discretion if it were to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(1) when the reason asserted as justifying relief is one attributable solely to counsel's carelessness with or misapprehension of the law or the applicable rules of court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“strike the proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.”
2 later decisions 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.