Fink’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2025
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 Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Houston v. Lack · Kachina Plywood, Inc. v. Hurt · City of Chanute Kansas v. Williams Natural Gas Company · United States v. Hooper
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) permits the district court to extend the time for filing an appeal if the party seeking the extension shows excusable neglect. The Finks contend the district court should have granted their motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, because misaddressing their envelope is excusable neglect. The district court denied the Finks’ motion based on our decision in Vogelsang v. Patterson Dental Co., 904 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1990). In Vogelsang , we stated, “ ‘[E]xcusab[le neglect] will not be found when the failure to [file a timely] appeal is caused by palpable oversight, administrative or clerical errors by the attorney or the attorney’s staff, [or] an attorney’s busy schedule....’” Id. at 481 (quoting 9 J. MooRE, B. Ward & J. Luoas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 204.13[l.-3], at 4-107 (2d ed.1989)). Although Vogelsang supports the conclusion that the Finks have not shown excusable neglect, the Supreme Court recently established a more flexible analysis of the excusable neglect standard in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). The Court in Pioneer held an attorney’s inadvertent failure to file a proof of claim can constitute excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1). Id. at 383 , 113 S.Ct. at 1492 . Interpreting the plain meaning of the phrase excusable neglect, the Court concluded, “Congress plainly contemplated that the courts wo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe the Pioneer interpretation of excusable neglect under the Bankruptcy Rules also applies when interpreting excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).”
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.