Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 652 F.3d 496 - Aikens v. Ingram

Aikens v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis

652 F.3d 496 · 2011

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
January 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Koon v. United States · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.

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

  1. “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[I]t is not the role of the district court to act as a roving advocate, providing legal arguments to the parties before it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the reason for relief from judgment does not fall within the list of enumerated reasons given in Rule 60(b)(l)-(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.