Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 606 F.3d 410 - Wallace v. McGlothan

Wallace v. McGlothan’s Empirical Analysis

606 F.3d 410 · 2010

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · United States v. Dunnigan · Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. · Collins v. State

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

  1. “a jury verdict for the moving party moots the issue”). It would waste time and resources to require a party to move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), formerly denominated “judgment notkwithstanding the verdict,” if that party has obtained a jury verdict in its favor. 4 . The dissent argues that judgment as a matter of law is unwarranted”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Thus, if a party raises a new argument in its Rule 50(b) motion that was not presented in the Rule 50(a) motion, the non-moving party can properly object.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion.”
    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.