Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 615 F.2d 1068 - Farina v. Mission Investment Trust

Farina v. Mission Investment Trust’s Empirical Analysis

615 F.2d 1068 · 1980

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
4
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Piambino v. Bailey (1985), Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp. (1980)

61 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

5801980199020002010decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 1819

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Beaufort Concrete Company v. Atlantic States Construction Company

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

  1. “Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) provides in pertinent part: When by these rules ... an act is required ... to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at its discretion ... (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect____”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Though FDIC did not formally file a motion to intervene, as specified in Rule 24(c), it was within the discretion of the District Court to treat the motion to remove as also a motion to intervene, both of which were granted by the Court in its obvious acceptance of FDIC as a party in this suit.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.