Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 647 P2D 582 - Stone v. Stone

Stone v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth (1993), 181 W. Va. 316 - Savas v. Savas (1989)

25 state decisions

8019821990200020102020decided

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 Ackermann v. United States · O'Link v. O'Link · Compton v. Compton · Glassford v. Glassford · Mills v. Mills

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

  1. “"Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On-motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or unavoidable causes; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (6) not more than eight months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding, or to grant statutory relief in the same action to a defendant not served with a summons in that action, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon th”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “may be raised at any stage of the litigation and if noticed must be raised by the court if not raised by the parties.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the provisions of a decree adjudicating property rights are modifiable only to the extent that relief may be obtained from any other final judgment.”
    1 later decision 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.