Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 651 P2D 397 - Craig v. Rider

Craig v. Rider’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Buckmiller v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1986), Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties, LLC (2010)

1 federal appellate · 45 state decisions

18019821990200020102020decided

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 Bailey v. Taaffe · Olson v. Stone · Riss v. Air Rental, Inc. · Coerber v. Rath · Ehrlinger v. Parker

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

  1. “C.R.C.P. 60(b) provides in pertinent part: 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, or excusable neglect ... or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) whether the neglect that resulted in the entry of judgment by default was excusable; (2) whether the moving party has alleged a meritorious defense; and (3) whether relief from the challenged order would be consistent with considerations of equity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The reasons for a rule of liberality in evaluating promptly filed motions to set aside default judgments are especially compelling as applied to motions to set aside orders admitting wills to probate. Persons interested in the estate of a decedent may not be intimately acquainted with the facts bearing on the grounds for a possible will contest. A challenge to a will is not a matter to be undertaken lightly, yet the Colorado Probate Code requires only ten days notice of a petition for formal probate to be given to an interested party.... This is a short time within which to arrange for legal counsel, conduct any necessary factual investigation, and make a considered decision whether a will contest should be undertaken. [Citation omitted.] ... We conclude that the record contains sufficient allegations of a meritorious objection to admission of the will to probate and is devoid of any indication that prejudice would result from setting aside the order of probate and hearing Linda Lou Craig’s objections to probate of the will on their merits. The critical inquiry is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Linda Lou Craig had not satisfied the excusable neglect criterion by demonstrating a sufficient reason to justify her failure to object to the ... will until after it had been admitted to probate. ... [A] rule of liberality is to be applied in evaluating promptly, filed motions to set aside default judgments, and particularly orders of probate. We con”
    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.