Vanderwerf v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate ·

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

1. “without the entry of an order by the district court left the [merits] order as the order being appealed. Because that order was seven months old, the time for filing a notice of appeal expired approximately six months before.... Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 requires entry of an order disposing of the Rule 59 motion to give the appealing party the benefit of Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). The Vanderwerfs’ withdrawal of their Rule 59 motion leaves the record as if they had never filed the motion in the first place.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. De Leon v. Marcos

2. “If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment — but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) — the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. De Leon v. Marcos

3. “Compliance with filing requirements is mandatory and jurisdictional.” (quotation omitted)). 2 . Lu also submitted a document captioned as a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 561 F. App'x 751 - Ning Lu v. Kendall