Gribble v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.2d 1173 · 1980
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Alcorn County Mississippi v. US Interstate Supplies Inc (1984), Smith v. Evans (1988)
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. · Strunk v. United States · King v. Texas · Chipser v. Kohlmeyer & Co.
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cannot be extended in the discretion of the district court.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Application of the “unique circumstances” doctrine would be particularly inappropriate with regard to this appellant. Having waited, with no apparent good reason, for more than three times the allowable delay period before serving her motion for a new trial, and having faced the appellee’s objection to the untimeliness of her motion (an objection raised within the sixty day period allowed for appeal), she was clearly on notice that her motion was not timely and that the delay period for appeal had not been interrupted, and any reliance she might have placed on the district court’s entertaining of her motion can hardly be characterized as reasonable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“doctrine has been used by Circuit Courts of appeal to temper the strict requirements of Rule 6(b) and to allow untimely appeal, when the appellant has reasonably relied upon the District Court's erroneous extension of time allowed for filing Rule 52 or Rule 59 motions, or its entertaining of such motions despite their untimeliness.'”
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.