675 F. Supp. 1132 - Hackman v. Postel’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2013
1 district · 6 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
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3931 (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)
Relies on Gardner v. California · Johnson v. Johnson · Tabor v. Miller · 14 Ariz. App. 183 - Norris v. Superior Court of Mohave County · 161 Ga. App. 776 - Underhill v. Barnes
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts interpreting § 521 have observed that for the movant to invoke the protection of the [Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act], he must make a showing of his actual unavailability and that his rights would be adversely affected by virtue of his absence from trial. [Citations omitted] Where a court determines that a serviceman did not exercise due diligence in attempting to make himself available for trial then the court may determine that the movant's military service did not affect his ability to conduct his own defense. [citation omitted] Courts denying motions for stays under § 521 have noted that mere contentions of unavailability, without affirmative representations that leave to attend trial was sought by the serviceman and refused are insufficient to warrant the imposition of such relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A) stay is not mandated simply because the moving party is in the military service. Courts interpreting § 521 have observed that for the movant to invoke the protection of the Act, he must make a showing of his actual unavailability and that his rights would be adversely affected by virtue of his absence from trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Childs v. Childs“mere contentions of unavailability, without affirmative representations that leave to attend the trial was sought by the serviceman and refused, are insufficient to warrant the imposition of [relief under the SSCRA].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowman v. May
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.